|
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
I'm not sure.
In fact, I'm not sure about a LOT of what the parent says.
It sounds like they started deliberating WHEN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, and
discovered they all thought the same way. Sounds like the kool-aid was working
... :-(
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art
--because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't
something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan
continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
...
The jury "skipped" determining what was prior art so they could
go faster.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
Are jury members allowed to be "expert witnesses" in the jury room and
testify to the rest of the jury?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 03:40 AM EDT |
If a person (say, a juror) has a pre-conceived idea of an issue, then anything
following will be seen in this light and focus will naturally be on that, which
confirm this initial opinion, while contrary evidence will be played down.
I believe the word for it is bias...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
Just an FYI: The "sony" phone that was excluded was made by Apple.
They made
a phone they felt would echo Sony's style. Do you see why it may have been
excluded?
Read more than Groklaw, you will get a better picture of the case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:39 AM EDT |
| Quote please, RE: One juror explained how they took the advice on the foreman on
how to determine if something is prior art.etc?
The only quote I've seen
skipped most of the details you've attributed to that juror and worse, in the
quote, he contradicts the process you use to describe their deliberations.
"Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was
easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we
had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something
out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we
could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
In fact, the juror's quote
doesn't make sense. Maybe something dropped from quoted interview before . . "in
fact we skipped that one". Otherwise hard to see how he got from A to B. Or
then again perhaps that's the state of mind at play. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
