decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Speculation thread on Apple's reply | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Speculation thread on Apple's reply
Authored by: dobbo on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT
Obviously, he's not biased

I admit that I haven't read the whole argument by Samsung (I haven't the time), but I don't see a argument of biasness.

The foreman was told, and agreed, not to judge on points of law except what the Judge told them about. He didn't do that. He used his own experiences to sway the jury, not what he was told to do:

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FROM THAT EXPERIENCE -- 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?

That is not what the rule of law requires, and therefore due processes was not followed. That makes the verdict what I believe we we call "unsafe" here in the UK, and justification to set aside the verdict and have a retrial.

No, he didn't act as an expert witness

Didn't he? That is exactly what he did by using his own personal knowledge of his "PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH PATENTS."

Even if he did, Samsung's cited cases don't show there is any remedy.

Samsung are asking for a retrial, or some other remedy, under Rule 50 and 59.

But IANAL, so maybe you've seen something that I've missed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Anyone Expect Circular Reasoning?
Authored by: 351-4V on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:25 AM EDT
One possible reply: "The juror's misconduct doesn't matter because the jury
found Samsung guilty."

You have to remember, reasoning like this works in the
Reality Distortion field.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

We're as American as Apple pie
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT
We are Apple
We're as American as Apple pie
We own cool.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Speculation thread on Apple's reply
Authored by: dio gratia on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
Apple channeling Bart Simpson.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )