|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
When the foreman starts inventing law out of his febrile imagination (prior art
isn't prior art because it doesn't run on an iPad, while at the same time
Android is infringing in spite of the fact that it doesn't run on an
iPad)--what's not to overrule?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Seagate v Hogan, not disclosed in voir dire. Cited cases say this is sufficient
evidence of bad faith in the form of bias to set aside a verdict, since the
juror is prevaricating to get himself on the jury.
Hogan, instead of discarding his prior experience of patenting, and using only
what was presented at trial, as he promised in voir dire, brought it to the
whole jury, according to himself and another witness, in public.
"Deciding to teach Samsung a Lesson", rather than follow instructions
that actual damages only were to be decided on.
Need I say more? This is rather public disobedience to the judge -- in England,
I'm told they put people in jail for such.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
Your second bite at the apple isn't any more convincing than
the previous, though.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
It's been said before, but here's a repeat on just one of the
issues.
From the Jury
Instructions, "Final Jury Instruction No. 35 Utility Patent Damages - Burden
Of Proof" (page 49 of the linked PDF) contains:
You should keep in
mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and
not to punish an infringer.
You should award
only those damages that the patent holder proves it suffered by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Neither patent holder is
entitled to damages that are remote or speculative.
Bolding mine
for emphasis. From Mr.
Hogan:
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not
just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was
sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
The
Jury instruction identified is quite clear (and repeated in other Jury
instructions):
It was not one of the Jury's duties to punish.
Yet Mr.
Hogan clearly spoke towards punishment rather then just identifying the proven
damages.
Your turn:
Please identify where - in either the Jury
Instructions or the Law - that which over-rode the Jury Instruction not to find
"damages to punish"!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
I haven't read the followup comments to this, but here's
my interpretation
(sorry if it matches other comments, and
turns out that I'm not adding anything
more).
The court basically said "I realize that you have
personal
experience in this matter, but can you set that
aside and only base your
decision on what I tell you is the
law?"
Not I will rely on your
personal life experience to guide
the other jurors to a decision based on the
law. The quote
that you put in right below your statement about how the
court
must expect the foreman to guide the other jurors
basically nullifies your
statement. I can't see how it " was
obviously not meant to cancel this Court
acknowledged
function within the jury. "
It seems pretty clear to me.
You have experience (not in
the outcome, but EXPERIENCE) in Patent cases and
lawsuits.
If you can't put that aside, then you shouldn't
serve.
basically you obviously will bring your life
experience
to your role as a juror, but would you be
able to set that aside, your
previous experience with
patents, and decide this case based solely on
the
law as you're instructed and the evidence that's
admitted during
the trial?"
Have a great day.:)
Patrick.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
... What specifically did he do with his fellow jurors that was not
part of "bring your life experience to your role as a
juror"?
Not grokin' your Groking
You would have
intentionally ignore the contextual meaning of the word "experience" to say that
the foreman could use NOTHING from his previous experience to inform his role
in the jury.
The jury's duty is to adjudge the veracity of the
testimony, evaluate the arguments of the case based on the evidence provided,
and to apply the law as instructed by the court. It is appropriate for jury
members to employ their "life experiences" in performing these tasks (this is
their "role" in the trial).
It is not the jury's role to interpret the
law, nor is it to introduce new evidence or arguments that were not presented
during the trial -- regardless whether one's "life experience" suggests
otherwise.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: miltonw on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
If you can't read and understand the articles in Groklaw, perhaps you should
stick with simpler blogs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
Nobody is moving on, including Samsung. The
issue is now on the table, before the judge.
It may not work with her, but there is an
appeals court to come. That is who will
decide this issue, which is now not going to
go away.
So you can stop telling us to forgeddaboudit.
I was right to notice the problem, and you
were wrong. That's the bottom line. You need
to be the one, therefore, to move on from your
position, which time and events have now
demonstrated to be wrong.
Can you do it? If not, just be aware that
commenters on Groklaw will not be deciding
the matter. It's much bigger than that now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
