|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
just a couple points that people arguing against this case keep conveniently
forgetting...
in regards to your 1st point.
wrt Tanner v. United States, that was mail fraud for a single individual. This
case is not only a heavy weight bout between the two largest cellphone producers
in the world, it could also alter history wrt the way patents are used and
assigned in the future. The court has a duty to make sure this is done right (or
the supreme court).
as a side note, there is a difference between jury misconduct in that they were
doing drugs and drinking beer) and jury misconduct in that the jurors blatantly
disobeyed the judge's written instructions and took it upon themselves to
"punish" samsung for "copying" apple by "ignoring"
prior art and the rest of samsung's evidence.
in regards to your 2nd point.
Lying in 6th grade or murdering nicole are not relevant but being sued by a
company directly related to one in a case you are asked to jury for IS INDEED
relevant. esp when it appears he worked over a loophole in bankruptcy to keep
his secondary housing and avoid paying seagate.
in regards to your 4th point.
VD only lasted about half a day. My guess is that neither Samsung's lawyers or
Apple's lawyers noticed the seagate reference because if Samsung had noticed,
they would have looked into it a bit more to determine the connection. and had
apple noticed, they probably would have ejected him for working for a company
directly related to the one they are sueing. IMO both sides had reasonable
information to have him removed, but neither did. So it is MORE likely that
either he was not a priority or neither side had the time to do their due
diligence.
in regards to your 3rd point. (and 4th)
none of this post trail non-sense would have happened had hogan kept his mouth
shut. QE would have been glad to take this trial to appeals, where it was always
innevitable to end up. But when they saw the opportunity to act and have the
verdict thrown out, they took it.
How can one reasonably expect the same outcome for a trial in which the jury
actually took prior art into account?
How can Judge Koh reasonably be expected to stand by a jury who was lead astry
by a man who "COULD HAVE" been out for revenge against the evil
company that sued him (or at least Samsung's metaphorical embodiment of said
company)? She can not let the results of this case rest on the wild card that is
Hogan.
There are too many what-ifs (far more than the two obvious ones i've mentioned
here) to not overturn this verdict.
~ukjaybrat IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Dis-Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
