|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:35 PM EST |
I started to write a whole list of everything in your post
that was just wrong. It got so out of hand that i gave up. The inaccuracies in
your post literally turned me off from reading
the rest of your argument.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:57 PM EST |
Do you have one original thought in your head, or have you mistaken that for
parroting back the judges opinion?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:58 PM EST |
Refreshing to see such a nice summary of the jury "misconduct" part of
the order.
I am surprised that it was allowed to see the light of day, as anything other
than swooning at the feet of Android is met with scorn on this site.
They should rename it "GoogleLaw", since what it has become is a
public defense for all things Google/Android. This site used to be a serious
place for conversation about IP issues. Sadly what it has become is a partisan
mouthpiece for Google.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:59 PM EST |
Okay, IANAL, but I'll give it a go.
First of all, Hogan stated to the media that they (the jury) wanted to
"teach Samsung a lesson," when the law they were following
specifically prohibited that. He thus publicly admitted that they defied the
law, and not only defied the law, but used this to inflate the damages, thus
unnecessarily "punishing" Samsung.
Secondly, there was the hooha about the prior art, where he stated that they did
not need to judge the validity of the patents when they in fact were to do so.
Thirdly, he stated that he used a theory he had come up with involving the
inability to run an app on a different phone (my memory is a bit hazy here) or
something similar. He thus acted as an unofficial expert, a no-no in a jury.
Fourth, he failed to disclose the case with Seagate, saying later that it was 20
years ago and the judge only wanted recent cases when she asked him. However, as
previous articles here have shown, this is nonsense, because she specifically
asked another juror about a case much older than that, and then even asked Hogan
about something 20 years ago. Yet, he did nothing to correct his
"mistake."
In summary, Hogan lied by omission, acted improperly as an unofficial expert,
and assisted in defying the governing case law. He then bragged about it
afterwards to the media. If this doesn't warrant action and a retrial, what
does?
---
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 | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM EST |
A lot of clever people reading this are anti-software patent in general. And
now we all know exactly what we can do legally.
Think about that one for a second. All patent lawyers have to do when choosing
a jury is weed out fellow lawyers and patent holders and look for open source
programmers, which shouldn't be hard thanks to Github & co.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:30 PM EST |
..and, are we picking brains here for free, freebee? ;o)
..it had to happen some day, so why not today? ;o)
Victory is sweet. ;o)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Charles888 on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 09:49 PM EST |
So basically, your (and the judge's)
first point is that Samsung should
have made the connection between the
bankruptcy and the employer
beforehand. This is weak at best.
Bankruptcies happen all the time,
and they rarely involve an employer.
There was nothing in voir dire to
suggest that, or to even suggest a
second level investigation. This is
used to disqualify the argument that
the juror is not disinterested
because he willfully attempted to
hide facts to get on the jury. I
frankly don't understand how she
made that leap.
After that, you (and the judge) use
point one to negate the exceptions
to rule 606 because the juror did
not show bias whole introducing the
external evidence (back to point 1).
It is some very tortured logic. Of
course, you can do that if you made
a conclusion and then want to
support it with whatever logic fits.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 01:22 AM EST |
From one of
Samsung's
replies:
[...] a juror is presumptively biased where “she told
the part truth that was useless, and held back the other part that had
significance and value.” Clark, 289 U.S. at 10-11 (juror “counted off a
few [past jobs] and checked herself at the very point where the count, if
completed, would be likely to bar her from the box”); see Dyer, 151 F.3d
at 983.
The fact that Hogan mentioned an irrelevant lawsuit but
withheld information about a potentially relevant lawsuit should disqualify him.
Does anyone doubt that he never would have got on the jury if he had mentioned
the Seagate lawsuit like he was supposed to?
The only counter to this
argument seems to be that Samsung needed to somehow magically know during the
voir dire that Hogan was lying by omission. The fact that Apple didn't know
about the connection and Samsung only found out about it via serendipity
demonstrates that this counter-argument is hogwash. What is the point of even
having a voir dire if the lawyers from both sides must assume that everything
being said is a lie? It seems lawyers must now do a detailed probe into the
background of every potential juror.
A serious problem we have here is that
it is not sufficient for the courts to be fair and honest and unbiased. They
also must appear to be fair and honest and unbiased. Letting a
presumptively biased juror get away with flagrantly violating the judge's
instructions sends a terrible message. Basing that free-pass on Samsung not
having a supernatural ability to immediately detect the lie of omission sends an
even worse message.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are
more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
