|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 09:11 PM EST |
Apple sounds like they will not acknowledge anything but "We won, now
pay!"
The judge should just dismiss the whole case as being one more attempt by Apple
to abuse the court system for commercial gain.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 09:19 PM EST |
"If there's any way that I can help reach a resolution."
Where does Justice fit into this statement? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 09:19 PM EST |
I am somewhat confused by the analysis you have offered.
I will say this with the usual cautionary note that you should never read to
much into what goes on at a hearing, however-
1. The jury foreman argument received no traction. The judge didn't want to
hear it (I believe the quote was "It's been briefed"). John Quinn
really leapt at it
at the end, and didn't do his side many favors. It's a good indication when the
judge tells you that you can "keep it short" as she told Apple- IOW,
don't
bother.
2. The amount of the damages, and squabbling over that, is actually a bad
sign for Samsung (IMO). This means a reduction in some damages is possible
(along with additional damages per statute), but not a wholesale new trial.
3. So overall, there may be some fiddling here and there, but it is likely that
the majority of the verdict will stand.
But who knows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 09:47 PM EST |
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 09:57 PM EST |
| Since I want to talk about CD's I guess I will create the topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 10:47 PM EST |
| Are you sure that Apple referenced Dyer? I think it is a much more relevant case
for Samsung. I know they have several quotes from Dyer in their
JMOL/misconduct/kitchen sink brief, but I think they miss the best parts. Here
are paragraphs 60 and 61 from Dyer in their entirety, which I find
interesting:
60
We don't know why Jessica Freeland so cherished her
seat on Dyer's jury.18 Jury service is a civic duty that citizens are expected
to perform willingly when called upon to do so. But there is a fine line between
being willing to serve and being anxious, between accepting the grave
responsibility for passing judgment on a human life and being so eager to serve
that you court perjury to avoid being struck. The individual who lies in order
to improve his chances of serving has too much of a stake in the matter to be
considered indifferent. Whether the desire to serve is motivated by an
overactive sense of civic duty, by a desire to avenge past wrongs, by the hope
of writing a memoir or by some other unknown motive, this excess of zeal
introduces the kind of unpredictable factor into the jury room that the doctrine
of implied bias is meant to keep out.
61
A juror, like Freeland, who
lies materially and repeatedly in response to legitimate inquiries about her
background introduces destructive uncertainties into the process. There is, of
course, the possibility that she did so because of some personal bias against
the defendant which she managed to hide from the court. But a perjured juror
is unfit to serve even in the absence of such vindictive bias. If a juror treats
with contempt the court's admonition to answer voir dire questions truthfully,
she can be expected to treat her responsibilities as a juror--to listen to the
evidence, not to consider extrinsic facts, to follow the judge's
instructions--with equal scorn. Moreover, a juror who tells major lies
creates a serious conundrum for the fact-finding process. How can someone who
herself does not comply with the duty to tell the truth stand in judgment of
other people's veracity? Having committed perjury, she may believe that the
witnesses also feel no obligation to tell the truth and decide the case based on
her prejudices rather than the testimony.
Mouse the Lucky Dog [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 10:55 PM EST |
Please post any corrections here. It is helpful to indicate the problem in the
title of your comment.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:18 AM EST |
The easiest path for Judge Koh is to go deny deny deny. Then it all goes to
appeal and becomes someone else's problem.
If she accepts Samsung's arguments she has to recall the jury which is a real
hassle, and then she has to poll them, and ask questions, and make a very
difficult judgement in a very unclear area of the law. Much easier to kick it
upstairs to the Appeals court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:22 AM EST |
Please use the newspick as your title, and use links whenever possible.
And PLEASE don't start canonical threads as Anonymous. And it's spelled
"Here", not "Hear"
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:27 AM EST |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:28 AM EST |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:29 AM EST |
Please include a link to the article
you are referencing as they will roll
off of the main page.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:29 AM EST |
Of the time I spent reading up on juror misconduct one thing has become clear.
When the court uses the term bias it does not necessarily mean a bias for one
one side or the other but a bias against something in general. Anything that
prevents a person from judging the case on the facts alone.
An example might be a person who thinks "patents are evil because they
cause global warming". Since Apple and Samsung both have patents in this
case it's hard to tell who is hurt more. Still you don't want that person on the
jury.
Of course if after the trial a side protests because some juror had a bias which
tendend to cause them to lean to their side, that lwyer is ... well kind of
stupid.
Mouse the Lucky Dog
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- But Bias is... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 07:48 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:38 AM EST |
Translation:
We are full of ourselves,
and we can smell it when
the residuals leak out.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 05:56 AM EST |
Weather or not the foreman was acting maliciously, the fact that he misled the
rest of the jury about the standards for invalidation/infringement (perhaps just
from ignorance) should be enough. So I don't really see the voir dire question
interesting, but I guess they are just turning every stone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 11:05 AM EST |
This 1965 Mustang argument...
Well, of course if Chev came out with a replica of a 1965 Mustang, then yes I
think a reasonable person would call that "copying",
"infringement", what have you.
But in fact in the car world, we have something very similar. The Mazda MX5 was
so closely modeled on the MGB that the Mazda engineers were given a recording of
an MGB exhaust note and told to replicate it. Which they did.
I've had MGs and MX5s and I can tell you the MX5 is exactly what an MG would
have been if British Leyland (or Rover, or whoever) had continued to develop the
MG product line of front-powered, rear-wheel-drive, true 2 seater convertibles,
The current Camaro looks a lot like a Charger. The HHR looks a bit like a PT
Cruiser. And so on.
So yes, the adaptation of design in the car industry happens *exactly* this way.
Same with trends in music, fashion and popular culture in general.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 11:23 AM EST |
Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny claimed that Samsung "willfully" made
a business decision to copy Apple's iPad and iPhone, and he called the jury's
$1.05 billion award a "slap in the wrist."
That's funny
considering Hogan's comments to the media
We wanted to make sure
the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to
make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not
unreasonable.
Apparently Apple Legal is not on the same page as
their expert witness on patents... oops, I mean Jury Forman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:21 PM EST |
I feel that short of Judge Koh ordering a retrial, whatever
the result here will be pointless as Samsung will appeal and
will win... unless Judge Koh reduces the damages to something
far less than what the lawyers will get paid on appeal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:33 PM EST |
| I don't know the particulars of this case, but I believe most jurors are sworn,
just like a witness, before answering questions. If so, wouldn't that make
Hogan guilty of perjury, since he intentionally, at least as far as I can tell,
withheld the truth of his court case? ---
"It's a summons." "What's a
summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky and Bullwinkle [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Perjury? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 04:58 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 01:52 PM EST |
269 Votes. We seem to be the only blog over 200, but there a few just a few
votes shy of 200.
http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100
(Legal Technology)---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category)
in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg 100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100.
Voting ends Dec 21. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 02:04 PM EST |
Oh, The Irony:
Judge Koh Calls For Apple/Samsung Patent
Peace
since most of the cases in Koh’s court have gone in Apple’s
favor to some degree, the Cupertino-based iPhone maker may
think it has found
a friend in the legal system. This is
likely to bring more cases from Apple to
Koh’s court.---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 04:37 PM EST |
Could others be brought in? Like former colleagues etc. who
may have heard the Juror complain about his financial losses.
I guess this would mean a lot of new digging.
But, would that even be allowed?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 04:58 PM EST |
Sometimes the most simple of things get lost in dust kicked up and mud slung.
The outcome of the trial isn't ,, for me at least, the amount of judgment or
what the jury decided about Apple's claims. For me, it all stopped working when
Hogan went completely against the instructions and brought his own
"expertise" into the jury room, an "expertise" that was not
only severely flawed, but flawed in Apple's favor. To me, the whole integrity of
the jury system depends in no little part on a jury following the law, procedure
and instructions. I can only what imagine what kind of outcome would come of
someone doing what Hogan did in a criminal case, where a person's life might
hang in the balance. So, did Hogan and the jury follow instructions or didn't
they? If they didn't, are there no consequences at all, and no remedy for the
defendant? If not, why bother with instructions and procedures at all?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 05:35 PM EST |
That isn't their primary function. They were designed as an entertainment
distribution method (a role at which they now are not as effective). Tape has
always had higher storage density, but is less in demand by consumers. Most
people could care less about backing up their data (until they lose it that is).
So optical drives will continue to ship as long as a majority of people want to
"own" movies and music rather than simply licensing it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 12:47 AM EST |
Assuming everything goes bad for Samsung with this judge,
verdict and damages stay the same, blah blah, whatever it
is; How long before the appeals courts sees this case and
makes a ruling? Is it like a year or is it something that
takes many years?
I find that this judge bit off more then she could chew.
(IMO) I think she let Apple add to much stuff in the trial.
Its a lot to take in for the jury, and i think if they could
have just had 1 or 2 (4 max!) of these complicated issues
then it would have been much less of a circus. Now i read
she just wants this case to be over with? Wow. You made it,
you should deal with it. At least be proper and call things
what they are. With this bad juror and the over rated
damages, its a wonder why she already hasnt granted another
trial. New trials have been granted for less. :/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
