|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT |
Two points:
1. Judicial proceedings are public. If they were not, there would be no way to
check if they were fair.
2. There were no iPhone watershed moment created by Apple.
The smartphone was made possible by development in hardware (in radio-circuits,
touch screen etc.), none of which were caused or invented by Apple.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Then What Is It? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
I think that you have made some excellent points, and I
wanted to expand on them a little. Submitting a few source
documents into a trial doesn't constitute the type of wide-
ranging examination and publication we see here. For
example, any one who has been involved in a divorce probably
has something, somewhere, in a court filing. Just because
they've been divorced, and there's a filing, doesn't
necessarily mean that it's a nice thing for a blogger to
publicize all the details.
Which builds to the next point. This post seems to conflate
a number of issues. Let me expand on this-
1. Samsung is moving for a mistrial based on juror
misconduct. This is a hail mary attempt (not that I fault QE
for doing so). The standard is nearly impossible to overcome
(see, inter alia, Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107
(1987) (jury consumption of "copious" amounts of alcohol,
marijuana, and cocaine not sufficient to overturn verdict)).
Moreover, it will be extremely hard if not impossible to get
any testimony about jury deliberations (FRE 606(b)). So
Samsung will have to move for this based on an incredibly
high standard, and without getting more evidence from the
jurors.
2. They do have a colorable issue based on the failure to
disclose the litigation (but see 1). But this investigation
into whether the bankruptcy was "fraudulent" are not is just
not relevant. Not only is the standard for juror misconduct
extremely high, but its exceptionally narrow- it's not a
license to go looking into all possible issues. This juror
may have lied in 6th grade. He may have killed Nicole
Simpson (and OJ just could never find him). Guess what? Not
relevant. Raising these issues is not only not relevant, but
unfair.
3. The outstanding issue I am curious about is how and when
QE discovered this information. QE is renowned in legal
circles for their juror research. Quite frankly, I would be
amazed if they didn't know until post-trial about this
issue, which may raise issues of waiver. I am wondering if
they gambled that this would be a favorable outcome for them
(given patent knowledge) and lost.
4. A final issue is conflation of the Seagate/Samsung
"subsidary". Yes, Samsung bought a part of Seagate (as part
of a partnership) in 2011. But the Seagate employment was
disclosed during VD, there was no followup, and there are no
current CoI, or any reason to believe that an old litigation
against one company would bias a juror against the purchaser
of a division of that company 20 years later.
All that said, I do think Samsung is raising an appropriate
issue on the failure to disclose litigation. But it's
helpful to remember what the issue is.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Dis-Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT
- Dis-Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
