|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
It seems that the main problem that the appeals court had with this case was not
that a juror conducted his own experiment persay but rather that the experiment
was conducted away from the court the lawyers and fellow jurors, so that the
other jurors only had the foreman's word on the validity of his experiment.
"What they’re prohibited from doing is conducting research on an important
issue outside the courtroom, away from lawyers and their fellow jurors."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: stegu on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
> since that concept was not introduced during trial
> it was therefore evidence external to trial that
> the Foreman brought to the Jury table.
The reason it was not introduced during trial is that
the theory he presented is poppycock, fantasies from
his own mind without support in the law. This has been
pointed out before, even by PJ in a main article.
There is no requirement of "interchangeability" for
prior art to be considered valid. If that was the
case, nothing from Apple would qualify as prior art
for anything Google or Samsung have done for Android,
because the two systems use different processors,
different programming languages and different operating
systems. Then Google could patent everything they did
regardless of what anyone else has done, with claims
saying "doing this old thing, only now in Android
using completely different source code".
The jury verdict in Apple vs. Samsung is based on a
fallacy. What Hogan introduced was not "evidence
external to the trial", it was drivel.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
| In the movie "Twelve Angry Men", the jury generates lots of its own evidence.
Human decency prevails and triumphs over the limitations imposed by the
system.
wiki
article
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
I thought I'd add the article on another case of Jury Misconduct here. Keep
the theme of Jury Misconduct in one thread so to speak. The case reference for
this case is:
Don Johnson Prods. Inc. v. Rysher Entertainment LLC, B227304
(Cal. App. 2nd Dist. Feb. 16, 2011)
This is a great example of where the
Jury Misconduct was when they took it upon themselves to find damages to which
they were not entitled to find.
This exact concept appears to be
reflected in the Apple Vs Samsung Case when the Jury decided to find sufficient
damages to be a deterring factor rather then strictly finding for actual proven
damages.
The case reference for the previous case is:
The People v
Kyle Vigil, C061065 (Super. Ct. No. CRF07-3492)
Just because over the past
few years I've found without a proper case reference it could be very difficult
to find the appropriate article again :)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
