decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Corrections thread | 107 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Koh Agrees to Hear Oral Argument Dec. 6 on Jury Misconduct and When Apple Learned of It ~pj
Authored by: eric76 on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:08 AM EST
Perhaps she's unconvinced by Apple's opposition and sees any reply by Samsung to
be superfluous at this time. Just wait until later to see if a reply by Samsung
to Apple's opposition might be needed.

Or do judges work like that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:19 AM EST
Please include a a note on the subject with the actual
correction. Suggested format: wrong->right, though maybe
actual per style regular expressions (s/input
patters/replacement pattern/) would not throw PJ into a
screaming fit like they do non-perl programmers

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:22 AM EST
Please include a (clickable) link to the newspick, so it can
be easily located once the actual blurb leave the main page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:27 AM EST
No talking about this hearing here. You can talk about other
things in this trial, or about anything at all that isn't
about this trial. Those who do not heed this order will be
subject to a 7 day, 24 hour continuous marathon of Apple
keynote reruns, or, if they so prefer, will have to read all
exhibits and fillings presented in this trial.

It is so ordered (by someone without the power to enforce the
order).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:29 AM EST
Transcriptions of the Comes vs Microsoft documents should be
placed here, in HTML format, but posted as POT*

*Plain Old Text, you TLA** illiterate younglings
** Three Letter Acronyms

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Agrees to Hear Oral Argument Dec. 6 on Jury Misconduct and When Apple Learned of It ~pj
Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:36 AM EST
Does Judge Koh's decision not to allow for Samsung's reply to
Apple's opposition help Samsung on appeal, should things go
pear shaped in the oral argument?

May it mean that she has no need for the reply, because she's
almost sure to grant Samsung's request, and so she does not
want yet another filling to read?

Finally, Do you think she has wisened up to Apple's tactics?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Agrees to Hear Oral Argument Dec. 6 on Jury Misconduct and When Apple Learned of It ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 07:11 AM EST
The part that doesn't strike me as being so favorable to Samsung is the part about whether or not what happened really matters.
Isn't whether or not the concealment was misconduct a rather major point in one of Apple's briefs (ignoring it's invalidity)? If so wouldn't it be in keeping with her attitude so far to bring it up in the hearing regardless of whether or not she thinks it will matter? Maybe I am misreading this but from my pitiful experience this doesn't seem to be bad for Samsung.

[ Reply to This | # ]

California needs to fund its courts?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 07:52 AM EST
California needs to fund its courts and create an atmosphere where judges can work without being overburdened.
This trial was held in a federal court. The state of California has nothing to do with the funding of this judge or her court. It is the backlog of federal judicial appointments that is the cause for this judge to be over worked. Hopefully the Republicans will stop stonewalling all of the judicial appointments that the president has attempted over the last several years now that the elections are over.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Agrees to Hear Oral Argument Dec. 6 on Jury Misconduct and When Apple Learned of It ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 08:52 AM EST
I'll just hope this is a good thing. Its not a denial, so
its a start.

One thing I'm wondering though is why would an oral argument
matter? Paper says all and its full of information. Verbal
arguments (verbal anything for that matter) can't possibly
give all the information in complex matters. It would take
so long to go through all that info in those arguments. In
my mind what shes asking here is the lawyers to debate like
high school... which is ridiculous. Who is a better debater?
Is that really what she wants?
In my opinion, shes got the words in front of her in those
briefs. I would hate for her to make the wrong decision because a lawyer blanked
or made a mistake in wording for 3
seconds while trying to explain something that's already
better thought out on paper. With the documents their is
time to think clearly, correct, and revise certain thoughts.
All a verbal argument will do is take those clear thoughts
and replace them with a worse version of what you already
have.
By the way, its a billion dollars. If I were a judge....id
probably make some time for that even if I was
overburdened.... I wonder how big the usual cases are that
are overburdening her are? (I'm not a judge though, so I
guess I cant be that hard on her without knowing)
-ilikemoneygreen

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe the judge is trying to put things in order
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:05 AM EST
Maybe she wants to figure out if what Hogan did meets the legal threshold for
being really, really bad.

If it didn't, no harm, no foul, and maybe what Apple knew when is practically
irrelevant.

But if it did, then if Apple knew and didn't disclose, that might be double
extra ungood for Apple.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Judge Koh doesn't mention.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:38 AM EST
She doesn't mention Hogan and other juror's statements that extraneous materials
were introduced into the deliberations by Hogan.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why only voir dire issues
Authored by: rao on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:54 AM EST

Shouldn't the content of his interviews since the trial ended be part of the misconduct evidence. He certainly has not hid the fact that he acted as an "expert witness" for Apple in the jury room. He explained to his fellow jury members how copyright law works. He convinced them that the prior art evidence didn't count because it did not run on an iphone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expedited briefing for this motion?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 11:31 AM EST
Some of the motions Samsung filed requested expedited briefing where Apple's
opposition timeframe was reduced and the reply was waived. Was that the case
for this particular motion? Is there no reply simply because Samsung waived it
at the time the originating motion was filed?

whitleych not logged in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Regardless of when known
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 01:27 PM EST
The fact is that jurist used personal knowledge (incorrect at that) to lead the
rest of the jury.
It should not matter who knew what when. He clearly violated his duty and
tainted the jury verdict.

Squabling over his motive and wether his motive was hidden or not is second and
third level points. That really matter only as to the personal consequnces for
the jurist.

As far as the main thread of trial is concerned there are two issues
a) did the jurist violate their duty
b) was one side or the other backstopping the jury verdict with knowledge that
the jurist was biased
Even those two issues should be looked at seperatly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some thoughts on the order of things
Authored by: nutmeg on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 01:27 PM EST
Is there any reason Samsung cannot file their reply between now and 6th
December? One possible interpretation of the judge's order is that she
sees that there is something to this, and wants to ask Apple questions of
her own (or hear more of their response to Samsung's if procedure
prevents her from asking directly). Since Apple's last filing is now in, she
may have no need to wait for Samsung to reply before ordering oral
argument, so long as Samsung get to file their final reply prior to that
argument being heard.

With the holiday season approaching, it could be that her schedule is
getting crowded, and she doesn't want to wait for Samsung's reply if
doing so risks missing the few windows she does have left. Rather than
have this issue drag on and on, she may feel it is best get it over and
done with, produce her decision later in December and enjoy the holidays
without having this in the back of her mind.

OK, so this is quite speculative, but the first question still stands - can
Samsung still file a reply before oral argument is heard?

---
perl < /dev/random # Try something new today

[ Reply to This | # ]

Juror Misconduct - Nightmare issue for Apple
Authored by: webster on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 04:01 PM EST
.

1. Was withholding the Seagate case misconduct? If so, was it serious enough
to vacate the verdict? Apple says no and no. But that was not their decision
to make. The Judge wanted to know about the case. That is why she asked in
voir dire. Once Apple learned of it, they usurped the Court's prerogative.
Apple held back for the same reason Velvin did --to get Samsung! What other
reason could there be?

2. Suppose Velvin wasn't the foreman and said nothing after the verdict. Would
withholding Seagate be then considered material? If it were a case against
McDonald's, it might be immaterial. But this case, against practically the same
party, combined with the desire to conceal, it is grossly material!

3. PJ talks of a high bar to establish juror misconduct. The number of
problems and their severity vaults this situation up to that bar. Only the
Judge can get it over. She is going to have to tamper with that verdict to
sustain it.

4. Apple's waiver arguments only aggravate their problem. You can't waive
something you don't know about. Samsung can't waive misconduct they did not
know about. Apple lawyers can't hold back juror misconduct, or the appearance
of such, as officers of the court. If Apple knew before deliberations, they
could have informed the judge and avoided all these problems. Velvin's sleight
may have got him past the Court's voir dire, but Apple's acquiescence in the lie
legally stains the verdict. The sooner Apple knew of Velvin and Seagate, the
more furious the Judge is gonna be.

4. The truth is out there and it is nailed down. There are too many lawyers and
their spouses involved on Apple's side to fudge on when they knew. One wonders
if they thoughtlessly whispered this Velvin advantage about hiding their mirth
from the Samsung side while never once thinking it might be proper to tell the
Judge she was lied to. Apparently patent litigation is no place for qualms.

~webster~

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )