|
|
|
| Authored by: Rodrin on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
The previous post was rather overly dramatic. However, the principle is sound.
This juror has a patent himself. His patent looks like it ought not to be a
valid one on the basis of prior art. This makes him prejudiced in the case. He
wants his patent to be valid. He doesn't want to think in his own mind, 'Well,
if these patents are invalid for this reason, then isn't mine invalid for the
same reason?' He wants to believe that his patent is valid. In looking for a
reason for his patent to be valid, he ends up manufacturing a reason for Apple's
patents to be valid.
As far as "the entire jury" being responsible for the decision. It's
true that they are responsible. They were given a commission, and part of it
was to not let anybody else do the thinking for them. However, a lot of regular
people will just acquiesce to a person that they view as much more of an expert
on matters than they are. In some situation or another, almost anyone will do
this, i.e., trust the expert. In a jury trial, you're not supposed to do this
with other members of the jury, but also, you're not supposed to have prejudiced
members on the jury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
The post, has all question marks. Asking a key "frame of mind" of the
foreman "related" question. Don't read it as attacking the jury
foreman at all.
If, jury foreman's view was as a "software patent holder", sitting
there all the time as this case unfolded, and all the time, even when he went
home and pondered prior art and had his "AH-HA" moment, was he all the
time as well wondering about his own patent. Did the profound and powerful
logic of Samsung's experts combined with the argument of Samsung's high class
lawyers (even without the judge allowing in some Samsung prior art to the case),
have left the jury foreman wondering about the validity of his own SW patent,
and if, it could be challenged using Samsung's prior art logic? If so, then
maybe that might have been why the jury result was "focused" on SW
patent issue (in fact the SW issue dominated their ruling)? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Sorry, the man shouldn't have been allowed on the Jury in the FIRST place- clear
and obvious bias on the subject that would have presented a clear and obvious
conflict of interest on his part for being there. If you're having a Patent
trial, you shouldn't have Jurors that have Patents filed or granted on the
panel. Period. While it makes a smidge of sense from the perspective of
knowledge of the process and of the technical art, it is a BAD idea from the
principal that you could have bias for either litigant because of being
pro-Patent, etc.
His being in the Jury is explicit grounds for a Mistrial- and renders the whole
verdict appealable (especially in light of his interviews which give grounds to
move for it right now or file an automatic appeal to vacate the verdict) if
one's not granted. If Samsung files the appeal...the courts most probably WILL
vacate the whole thing right now.
I'm sure that they asked questions that would've tipped off that they didn't
want this Juror in the Jury, period. If they didn't, that was sloppy lawyer
work. If they did, the man LIED on the stand about having patents in hand or
pending.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
