|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:30 AM EST |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jkrise on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:31 AM EST |
All I can say is - Steve Jobs sjould have been alive to see his
thermonuclear war playing out in courts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:31 AM EST |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- European Unitary Patent. re-post of an email from my MEP "new patent package does not cover sw" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:47 AM EST
- Off topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Instagram users snap over photo selling to advertisers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 03:44 PM EST
- Top 10 YouTube Video's in Canada Includes one with a Linux Connection - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:17 PM EST
- ARM's security features - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Sally K. Ride Lunar Impact Site - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 07:18 PM EST
- Another bad effect of patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 09:23 PM EST
- RIAA : 1879 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 10:11 PM EST
- Another reason to stay away from Facebook - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 10:24 PM EST
- UK record industry wants you to know why they are going after Pirate Party execs personally - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 10:53 PM EST
- Bring more guns to schools?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 12:23 AM EST
- Not Much Time Left - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 01:53 AM EST
- Result of ITU spam filtering (cartoon) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:42 AM EST
- Latest Mobile Numbers for End of Year 2012 - This is getting humongous - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:14 AM EST
- Ellison defends Sun acquisition - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 10:06 AM EST
- King of Trolls buys Kodak patents - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 12:15 PM EST
- HotPi - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 02:34 PM EST
- Surface, WinRT, and Other Beasts - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 03:05 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:32 AM EST |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:34 AM EST |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 09:20 AM EST |
That's interesting.
I think Judge Koh is handling this case with much more care
after the controversies she caused with the sentence in
August.
Having had such care when she instructed the jury back then,
we'd see a completely different legal scenario now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 10:26 AM EST |
Glad she caught that.
This actually looks quite good... in parts :-)
Apple must be getting worried about these damages payments
being reduced.
---
Silverwav (Not logged in)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 10:27 AM EST |
I think the judge has realized that this case is the legal equivalent to a Tar
Baby. Once you touch it, you are stuck to it.
In a lot of ways it reminds me of Caldera v. IBM.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fandom on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 10:49 AM EST |
| Unless higher courts say otherwise it will pay over a billion dollars. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 12:05 PM EST |
Judge Koh had multiple admissions by the foreman testifying to his own gross
misconduct during deliberations. That she was able to cobble together a few
opinions that "justified" her intention to ignore these statements
should get her cited for misconduct if and when the appeals courts show even a
shred more integrity than Her Honor Judge Koh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 12:29 PM EST |
I wouldn't go that far, but it is possible that she didn't realize quickly
enough that this case was far more complicated than anything she had done
before. Now that she realizes she is in over her head, she wants to clear the
decks and move it upstairs as quickly as possible. Then when it does get
remanded, she can recuse herself and let someone more accustom to patent cases
take a stab at it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 12:35 PM EST |
How to read an order.
Issues presented:
1. Hogan was biased.
2. Hogan improperly presented extraneous prejudicial
information during jury deliberations. (Order at 1)
1. Hogan was biased. Basis for claim- he lied about his
relationship with Seagate, and concealed infomation about
prior lawsuits.
Analysis- it was unclear that Hogan lied or deliberately
mislead the Court. However, even assuming that Hogan did
lie, Samsung waived this claim. Actual knowledge of
misconduct of potential bias is not needed for waiver;
parties waive the right to challenge a jury’s impartiality
by failing to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering
the evidence. And actual knowledge is a complete bar.
Samsung had actual knowledge that Hogan was employed by
Seagate. Samsung had actual knowledge of Hogan’s bankruptcy
the day of jury selection. Samsung chose not to question
Hogan about Seagate during voir dire, while arguing that the
Seagate/Samsung relationship made Hogan biased, instead
asking Hogan about patents and hobbies. Pull quote
“Samsung’s entire bias theory is premised on the
relationship between Samsung and Seagate. If Samsung
believes that its relationship with Seagate is close enough
that feelings toward Seagate could bias a juror one way or
another toward Samsung, counsel should have pursued the
subject during voir dire.”
2. Hogan improperly presented extraneous prejudical
information during jury deliberations. Basis for claim-
post-verdict interviews.
Analysis- the majority of these statements are barred by FRE
606(b). Above, we see a comment that Hogan introduced
“factual material”. This is misleading given the context of
the order, which delineates several exceptions to the near-
universal rule that jury deliberations are sancrosanct. As
better stated on p. 18, “These statements, however, all
pertain to what occurred during jury deliberations, or to
the jurors’ mental processes – evidence specifically barred
by Rule 606(b). Samsung does not
argue that Mr. Hogan introduced any outside knowledge
specific to the facts of this case.” The order then shows
why the limited exceptions cited by Samsung are not
applicable-
Hard I- juror talked about defendant’s prior settlement
practices during deliberations. This is specific factual
knowledge about one of the parties.
Gibson v. Glannon- jurors consulted medical encyclopedias
(extrinsic factual knowledge)
Briefly put, the court finds that the post-verdict
statements are inadmissible, so Samsung loses right off the
bat. However, the Court (in dicta) is also saying that *even
if they were admissible* that Samsung would lose, as Hogan
did not introduce any *fact* extraneous to the jury, or
applicable to the parties involved. “Moreover, at the
hearing on post-trial motions, Samsung repeatedly praised
the jury, noting the care, precision, and consistency with
which the jury calculated damages based on trial damages
evidence. Samsung also praised the jury for ruling for
Samsung on Apple’s breach of contract and antitrust claims.
Samsung cannot credibly claim that the jury’s conduct was
simultaneously worthy of such great praise and so biased as
to warrant a new trial.”
There is a difference between a priori and post hoc
reasoning. Post hoc, Hogan was a bad juror to have for
Samsung in the aggregate (although, again, the jury found
for Samsung on a number of claims), but the sheer amount of
vitriol thrown at this guy is unreal. All jury trials
contain within them an element of risk. They are both a
great bulwark of liberty, and kind of a crapshoot. I think
that this is Samsung’s least likely avenue to prevail on
appeal, but, hey, we’ll see.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM EST |
On page 41 of the Day One Transcript it says [Jurors sworn in]. So Hogan
was, under penalty of perjury, required to tell the whole truth, the full truth,
and nothing but the truth.
He did not. Quite clearly, and publicly, he has proven he did not. What I
cannot understand is why Judge Koh is not furious with him enough to
bring him back to her Courtroom.
I have done cases in front of several different Federal and State and I
cannot imagine any of them simply glossing over Hogan's behavior and
merely wanting to be done with the case.
---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky
and Bullwinkle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM EST |
Surely Henry Ford I can claim prior art.
Sorry, I could not resist it.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:45 PM EST |
Hmm, went to check the votes, they all show up as ?. That's not
good.
http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100
(Legal Technology)
Voting is not supposed to end until the 21st, so
no idea what's going on.---
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: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 03:01 PM EST |
So there can't be a causal Nexus. The current version of the phone isn't even
made by Samsung, although the new tablet is.
Maybe Google can call the next set of devices the "Causal Nexus". And
put an enhanced map app.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:01 PM EST |
Ok, so Judge Koh feels that Samsung should have dug into Hogan's background.
Does this mean that prospective jurors will now have to deal with people running
Secret Clearance-Level background checks on them, should they be selected for
jury duty? If so, way to encourage jury duty, Judge.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonomous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 06:17 PM EST |
Apple seems to be taking its trial philosophy from Browning: "Ah, but a
troll's reach should exceed its grasp,/Or what's a courtroom for?"
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- LOL (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 04:11 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 09:07 PM EST |
I would have expected something like:
"The court could have and should have questioned jurors in such a way that
relevant facts could only have been omitted by outright lying"
Imagine what would have happened if Samsung's lawyers started asking similar
questions to those already asked by the court but asked them better and
succeeded in revealing all the extra dirty washing in Mr Hogan's past life.
Would that not have exposed the court's negligence in the most public of ways?
Is that what the court really wanted?
Methinks there is a big effort here to keep any indication that the court
performed less than adequately off the record, while expecting the legal teams
to be omniscient or face the consequences, with Kafkaesque comments like
"Further, as detailed above, Mr. Hogan repeatedly stated that he had no
bias toward either party, and could be a fair and impartial juror. However,
because the Court finds that Samsung waived its right to object to Mr. Hogan’s
answer even if it was dishonest, ..."
Sorry but I have no respect for people who can't admit they got it wrong.
PJ, Delete away if you find this too offensive. At least I got it off my chest.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 02:18 AM EST |
Bravo PJ! You have written an article so uncomfortable to Apple lovers that they
are out in force.
We are getting the sophisticated ones trying to "reason" with us that
we are biased.
They are even disagreeing with facts, because they do not serve their purposes.
It's rather entertaining to watch them get swarmed by our community throwing
facts in their faces.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
