|
|
|
| Authored by: imperial on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
One point that provides clear grounds for appeals and annulment of the verdict
by the judge is that fact that the jury ignored the judges instructions. The
foreman has made that abundantly clear on a number of occasions.
Little things like 'punitive damages', failing to consider the question of
patent validity, applying mutually exclusive standards to Apple's patents, prior
art and Samsung's patents. His admissions have really painted Judge Koh into a
corner here. Clearly the jury has acted improperly in it's deliberations and the
entire verdict is now suspect.
If Judge Koh doesn't actually overturn the verdict then sh must know that it
will not survive any appeal. I think we will see this being retried at some
future point. Whether Judge Koh declares a mistrial due to the jury's conduct or
whether the appeals court sends it back to be retried I guess is the question to
be answered.
Either way, I'm willing to bet we will be back here this time next year on the
same issues.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: egan on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
Another thing, weren't the prospective jurors asked if they were patent
holders during voire dire?
Both sides alleged patent infringement in this
case and thus would have had an interest in seating an impartial jury, but that
obviously didn't happen with this jury foreman.
Not to cast unfounded
aspersions, but if so, and this jury foreman didn't admit before being seated on
the jury that he was a patent holder, he perjured himself. One might think that
could amount to juror misconduct all by itself.
I suspect Samsung might
be paying the court reporter for a rush transcript of the jury voire dire
proceedings.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
"...Judge Koh or the appeals court can only overrule the jury with
respect to those parts of the verdict that no reasonable jury could have
found..."
"No reasonable jury could have found this" is like saying: this jury
did something blatantly unreasonable. And again, this relates to what the jury
found, not to what instructions it chose to ignore or how quickly it rendered a
verdict. If a reasonable jury that read the instructions and took a
reasonable amount of time (whether or not three days can be considered
reasonable doesn't matter) could have arrived at the same findings, then this
verdict will stand forever.
To be clear, I must mention that
the "expert" is FM, who I have come to conclude that, is infamous on Groklaw.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
I love a reasonable jury.
Unfortunately this jury was nothing like a reasonable jury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
