|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:13 PM EST |
Sometimes being correct just ain't in the genes. I hope you are not an attorney,
but I fear that you are.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM EST |
The "smoking gun", so to speak, was Hogan's description of
his "aha moment" when he realized (completely falsely) that
the prior art that could (should?) have invalidated Apple's
patent claims was not applicable because it did not run on
the same processor - WRONG!
He also led his fellow jurors to believe that they were not
supposed to consider the validity of Apple's patents, only
whether Samsung infringed upon them assuming they were valid
- WRONG!
These were critical issues at the core of the entire
verdict, and the jury (at least the foreman, and he claimed
the rest of the jury relied on his judgement) got them
completely wrong.
Now, all of the above is based on post-trial media
statements, and if the judge says it is inadmissable, so be
it. No one ever said juries were infallible, and there
obviously must be some incidence of cases where the jury
simply blows it and makes a totally wrong decision. But we
are apparently stuck with it, like when a parent falls back
to "because I said so".
(fwiw, I actually believe that lay juries "blow it" all the
time. Juries may be a bit of a bulwark of liberty in
criminal trials, but in civil law they are just the audience
for highly structured theatre. I put almost no faith in the
ability of lay juries to reach correct decisions about
complex, specialized issues. This is especially true
because of the adversarial method of our trials. The
competing sides aren't trying to impartially educate the
jury, they are trying to do everything possible to game the
system in their own favor.
Imagine if complex medical decisions were decided this way.
Instead of an expert impartially reviewing the data, we
would have highly theatrical semi-experts using emotionally
charged language to push the treatment plan in a particular
direction. The final decision for the life-or-death therapy
would be made by a group of twelve people selected to have
no relevant prior knowledge or experience whatsoever. Would
you trust your life to a decision made in this fashion?)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 05:30 PM EST |
Concerning Hogan: Did he or did he not say to the media that they
wanted to "punish" Samsung? Hogan:
[[t]he jury] "wanted to send a message to the
industry at
large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do,
not
just Samsung," and that the "message [they] sent
was not just a slap on the
wrist." So, no.
I'm not sure why you think quoting an unrelated
statement proves Hogan didn't say something, but here is the relevant
one.
"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." [Source: Reuters]
So not
only did Hogan see it as his role to punish Samsung, it was apparently his role
to graciously decide that corporal rather than capital punishment was
appropriate.
Your next statement about how it is not the jury's role to
impose punitive damages is probably the one thing most of us agree on. The
problem is that according to Hogan's statement, that is precisely what they
did.
Did this case pose a conflict of interest problem for Samsung?
- No. If it did, they would have asked him about it in voir
dire,...
If they knew about it at the time. I am not sure how voir
dire actually works over there, but does a legal team have an opportunity to
take a response to a question, do a bit of research for a day, then come back
and continue? I doubt it, so unless Samsung (or Apple for that matter) knew
Hogan's detailed history in advance, there would have been no practical way to
follow up the question. Also, 99 times out of 100, when a person works for a
company and moves on, there are no lingering feelings other than missing a few
good friends. The circumstances of this case were highly convoluted.
Realistically, who would have taken the statement that he worked for Seagate and
had had financial difficulties with his house and realised that the two were
related?
Also, isn't a potential juror under oath in voir dire? Does that
oath have something like "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth" in it? How does omitting to mention the case that would likely have led
to animosity towards one of the parties comply with the "whole truth"
bit?
Therefore, did Hogan improperly influence the jury - No.
This
is why I am ignoring your other questions. He is part
of the jury. He, by
definition, can't improperly influence
it.
I hope you are joking.
The jury was given instructions by the judge. Hogan, in many ways, defied those
instructions and influenced the rest of the jury to do so. How is that "proper"?
He introduced his own self-proclaimed expertise in patent law. Then there was
his infamous "ah ha!" moment where he dismissed Samsung's prior art based on an
argument that can only be described using language that is banned here on
Groklaw. I dare say he was probably the driving force behind the jury's decision
to punish Samsung.
Jury verdicts are sacrosanct and only in extreme cases
should they be reviewed. This is one such case. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 07:42 PM EST |
I have to say that English isn't my mother language, but
what I see here is
some clear issues understanding English
sentences.
The jury "send a
message to the industry", but does "the
industry" include Samsung? There
no doubt about it:
yes.
And "sending a message" is not what a
jury should do:
it should define a compensative amount for patent
infringement. No "message" of any sort, because that's the
judge's
duty.
And by the way, what kind of "message" did the jurors wanted
to
send? That was a clear punitive intent, no need to hide
behind the
words.
Therefore, is this a problem? Yes, definitely.
As for
Hogan's past experience with Seagate, I feel that
Samsung's lawyers actually
made a little mistake, not
spotting the problem right at the beginning. But
anyway, the
judge asked Hogan to disclose all of his previous
legal
experiences. She did not put temporal limits.
But Hogan, when asked
why he didn't disclose his past
experience with Seagate, justified himself
saying that "he
didn't know that Koh was interested in such an old case"
(can't really remember his words), even though he was asked
about an even
older case.
Therefore, does this imply that Hogan failed to disclose
a
case that he should have disclosed? Yes, of course.
"[Hogan] is part of
the jury. He, by definition, can't
improperly influence it."
Are you
serious? Please, tell me you are not.
"Improper influences" are the main
reason why the jury is
instructed by the judge in advance. If the foreman, or
any
other juror, is allowed to influence the other jurors with
all the
experiences that had in his/her personal life, there
wouldn't be the need for
instructions.
But there are, because "improper influences" do
exist.
Jurors should try their best to clear their minds and make
a
white sheet out of their personal experiences in the
matter. You can't
disregard that and hope to have a fair
trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 10:12 AM EST |
You are stating as true things that are
arguable. While you are free to do that,
no one will be influenced.
I will give you one example. You say that
Hogan said that he was sending a message to
the industry, not just to Samsung. He did
say that, but only after he had been widely
criticized for saying they wanted to
send a message to Samsung and that this is
what influenced how much the damages would be.
So, after the fact, he changed his story. ANd
he did that with a number of "facts". Over and
over, so excuse us if we don't accept as
necessarily true anything that he says. It's
why Samsung called him dishonest.
Now, it's likely we followed Mr. Hogan's
statements more closely than you did, or the
judge did, for that matter, but I don't think
the statements you make are unchallengeable.
But why argue about it further? You've made your
points, and time will tell, as they say. But
left as it is, no one here will view this as
a fair trial. If Apple doesn't care that there
is a shadow over this trial, so be it. But I'll
never view it as anything but a farce, personally.
And when the judge rules on the JMOLs, I think
you will see the numbers shifting downward, judging
by her comments at the hearing. The jury, she said,
gave Apple whatever they could and things that they
couldn't. And they did. That was tied, I believe,
to their desire to send Samsung a message, and
juries are not allowed to do that with damages.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
