|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
The way deliberations seem to have played out, an
undiscovered Hogan was a tremendous ace for Apple. (In that
he supposedly singlehandedly delivered them a dream
verdict.) If things had gone slightly differently, however,
and the jury had more than one malignant phanboi/IP zealot,
Hogan's actions would have just wasted that other juror's
pro-Apple efforts. In that case they would have done well to
get him off the jury before deliberations began. Would we
expect most jury pools to include unrepentant patent
holders?
I don't think Samsung have enjoyed the last several months,
so I think they would have come forward earlier had they
found out about Hogan earlier.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
I still think a "mob lynching" is on order.. that is, a
community effort.. to find prior art and invalidate his
precious patent. I'd donate to it.. if someone else organized
it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
"Anyway, don't be too hard on Velvin." - yes. Never ascribe
to malice that which can be explained by the fact that
Velvin is an incompetent clown, unable to keep his mouth
sensibly closed :-)
For a laugh, you should check out his patent, it appears to
basically be a Tivo with offline storage. That's probably
why it was allowed to lapse - in the few years it was valid,
I doubt it bought in enough money to justify spending the
re-registration fee.
No, I have no sympathy for a person who appears not to be
able to follow fairly specific instructions from the judge,
costing a company $1b (or possibly not, now). He bought this
on himself.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:52 AM EDT |
The Apple side might be implying (really outright stating) that leaving him on
the jury was an ace-in-the-hole for Samsung, but that would have been far too
risky of a move.
It's not common for jury members to talk to the press, and when they do the
statements are usually light on content. It's very uncommon for them to do
extended interviews that are so... uhmm, news worthy.
Without that press coverage, Samsung wouldn't have the excuse for discovering
his unreported lawsuit.
While it initially sounds like a great strategy, leaving a rogue juror in the
pool risks getting a billion dollar jury verdict against you and the judge not
letting you play the card. Even if it's 90% certain you can get the verdict
nullified, that's a $100M expected loss. Throw in a uncertainty correction
factor, and it's a $150M or $200M cost. Compare that to the likely spread of
losses from a fair jury, from $0 to a few tens of millions. Trying to game the
system looks like a poor choice.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
