|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
I meant to link to the
earlier Groklaw article. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
Either that or they decided that they ought to disclose the relationship up
front, before Apple tried to use it to discredit them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
Samsung had no knowledge of Velvin Hogan’s
litigation against
Seagate until after the jury verdict was
rendered in this case. Samsung did
not know until after the
verdict that Mr. Hogan had ever been in litigation
with
Seagate, had been a defendant to claims brought by Seagate or
had filed
his own claims against Seagate. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
The exhibits include a variety of news article on the
jury foreman. Readers
comments are included with one of
them, and they certainly have a poor opinion
of Apple and
strong feelings that the judgement. Just a
sample...
Apple will soon sit down with their emotional
pride, and then all the hypes about owning an Iphone and
Ipad will soon fade
away quietly. Remember the Blackberry?
Remember the hypes about owning a
blackberry? This goes to
show you nothing stay on top forever. If Apple now
going to
start suing other companies to stay on top, then it's safe
to say the
end is near for Apple.
- Michael Braveman , New York, United States of
America
30/8/2012 10:03
Rating 15
'We have always been
shameless about stealing great
ideas' - Steve Jobs. So apparently its ok to
take ideas from
others as long as youre Apple. Seems to be true from their
track record. WRT the case, IMO: 1.
How did Apple get approval 4 these
overly broad patents in
1st place? 2. Prior art exists for all patents in case.
E.g.
Mitsubishi Diamond Touch (2001?) 3. Unfairness apparent in
post trial
jury comments (e.g. Ilagan, Hogan) who stated
they had decided on trial day 1
Samsung were guilty. Hogan
also stated 'We wanted to make sure it was
sufficiently high
to be painful..' after instructions state damages should not
punish infringer (2x no less). 4. Experts surprised at speed
of deliberation.
700 complex Qs, about 1.8min per q was 1
estimate! Then inconsistency awarding
damages Stinks of jury
didnt do job. I hope Samsung overturn or win appeal.
Apple
arent innovators, they are anti-competitive acquirer's of
others ideas.
I smell anti-trust lawsuit brewing :)
- mick , london, 29/8/2012 22:16
Rating 17
Apple = Sith empire.
- uberspacemonkey , London,
29/8/2012 14:11
Rating 31
I knew it the moment I read that Apple
won the case. It
was biased as it was on American turf and that too in
California... are you kidding me ! Apple has never
"invented" anything. They
saw something... and
bettered it. Its called creativity and NOT invention which
Apple claims ! What a farce.
- Nilesh , London, 29/8/2012 12:36
Rating
34
Biased jury and court now exposed for what they are - a
total sham
biased towards an American company.
- Mowdiwarp , Huddersfield, 29/8/2012
12:01
Rating 34
This is an appalling revelation! Anything that
even has
the potential to inject bias into litigation involving a
jury should
be summarily halted! This has the potential to
completely undermine the
credibility of due process in this
case, or any other under similar conditions!
What I would
like to know is how in the world was this not spotted at
jury
selection? The verdict is unsafe regardless of the
circumstances and should
immediately be set aside by the
judge next month! So as much as I admire Apple
technology
and their wonderful cutting edge products I would strongly
advise
them not to count their chickens just yet!
- Christopher Smithers , London
UK, 29/8/2012 12:00
Rating 34
As a consumer, this is not healthy
for the news for the
technology and marketing development. It will make huge
bad
influence on all platforms (Ex, Technology, pricewise,
quality wise). This
is a bad example for electronic world.
So consumers are boycotts the APPLE
products and campaign
for the Apple products boycott. If the consumers are
boycott
the APPLE products, that’s good indicator for technology
world.
-
Luther , Romford, Essex, 29/8/2012 12:00
Rating 27
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
And to be clear the Zeller declaration states:
3. Samsung had
no knowledge of Velvin Hogan’s litigation against Seagate until after the jury
verdict was rendered in this case. Samsung did not know until after the verdict
that Mr. Hogan had ever been in litigation with Seagate, had been a defendant to
claims brought by Seagate or had filed his own claims against
Seagate.
Mr. Jacobs does a wonderful case of bait and switch, that
any lack of a fair trial by an impartial jury is Samsung's own
fault:
1. Samsung waived these objections
Samsung accuses Mr.
Hogan of “fail[ing] to answer truthfully during voir dire” by not
mentioning a
dispute with Seagate in 1993 and a related bankruptcy. (Mot. at 2.)
Samsung
waived these objections because it knew of or could have discovered the
alleged “lies” before the
verdict. “‘[A] defendant cannot learn of juror
misconduct during the trial, gamble on a favorable
verdict by remaining silent,
and then complain in a post-verdict motion that the verdict was
prejudicially
influenced by that misconduct.’” United States v. Bolinger, 837 F.2d 436,
438-39
(11th Cir. 1988); Robinson v. Monsanto Co., 758 F.2d 331, 335 (8th Cir.
1985) (objection waived
if basis “might have been discovered during voir dire”);
see McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v.
Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 550 n.2 (1984)
(party cannot attack verdict based on unchallenged voir
dire answer that it
“thought to be factually incorrect”).
Mr. Hogan disclosed during voir dire that
he had “worked for Seagate” (Tr. 191:20-192:2), and Samsung also knew that day
that Mr. Hogan failed to disclose that he “declared
bankruptcy in 1993.” (Dkt.
No. 2022 ¶ 9.) If Samsung’s recent acquisition of a 9.6% stake in Seagate (Dkt.
No. 2013-4) were so important that bias toward Seagate could create bias against
Samsung, it should have asked Mr. Hogan about Seagate. Had Samsung done so, or
ordered the
bankruptcy file—the exact step it took only after it received the
unfavorable jury verdict—it
could have discovered the Seagate complaint. (Dkt.
No. 2022 ¶ 4.) By doing nothing, Samsung waived its objections. Robinson, 758
F.2d at 334-35 (no new trial where juror disclosed employer and plaintiff failed
to ask about dealings between employer and defendant).
There's a
couple of things wrong with that. The court did ask the perspective juror about
involvement in court actions and he did not answer truthfully by omission, in
the press citing a supposed 10 year relevancy rule post verdict. You could note
that it is a function of the court to insure a fair jury trial under Amendments
5 and 7,Rule 47(a) makes it clear that attorney oral questioning is
discretionary (see the Ninth Circuit Manual on Jury Trial Procedures, Attorney Participation in
Voir Dire). Shifting the burden to Samsung referring to the perspective
juror's alleged "lies" is nothing but emotional appeal.
The Zeller
declaration specifies Samsung did not know before the verdict. That declaration
was made Oct 1st, while the representation Mr. Jacobs makes above was made Oct
19th. Samsung did not remain silent. Should we assume Mr. Jacobs did not keep
himself fully informed of written representations to the court or is he bringing
the veracity of Mr. Zeller's declaration into question? The lack of a paragraph
9 in the refiled Dkt. No 2022 (as 2025) is particularly worrisome. It appears
to be a citation of fact not found in and contrary to the record.
The
Robinson case cited involves a motion to overturn a jury verdict by the
plaintiff which failed on appeal. As to whether or not Robinson's "right to a
peremptory challenge was prejudicially impaired" "Robinson failed to demonstrate
that Jecha deliberately concealed any information or that the alleged business
association in any way indicated Jecha's probable bias in favor of Monsanto with
regard to a claim of racial discrimination" 758 F.2d at
335.
Samsung appears to contend that by concealing that Seagate had enjoined
suit against the perspective juror in an adversarial proceeding, a bias is
foregone with respect to Samsung's ownership stake in Seagate. Robinson
doesn't appear to be the correct case to challenge that contention, instead
hinging on the lack of bias being evident.
You could wonder if Apple is
going for volume and not accuracy here. Is there a built in assumption the court
will not diligently peruse the record or citations? Maybe we'll see a corrected
objection? Corrected, it might actually fall within the page count.
In
seems unlikely the court would find that Samsung waived objections. Some of the
remaining objections appear likely to fail for building on this faulty
foundation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- @PJ: Get 2022? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 09:24 PM EDT
- @PJ: Get 2022? - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- Thanks! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- I can just hear Michael Moriarty. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT
- Gawk - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 07:11 AM EDT
- 2022, para 9 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:11 AM EDT
- 2022, para 9 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:40 AM EDT
- A fun assumption blown out of the water :( - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:28 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 05:56 AM EDT |
My guess is both are right. The relationship probably brought up the issue, that
lead to the investigation that resulted in "knowing" in the legal
sense.
I also guess the lawyers partner couldn't do much other than mention they
thought Hogan had been in a lawsuit with Seagate without breaking attorney
client privilege, so it would have to have then been investigated to go from
hearsay to knowing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|