|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 10:42 AM EST |
Let me clarify a point. If Samsung is able to convince the Appellate Court
that the foreman's voir dire non-disclosures are sufficient for a new trial, I'm
okay with that. I just make the point that it is understandable that a Court is
extremely reluctant to open up this, and thus, all voir dire as a post-verdict
battleground.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST |
When did Samsung say the smartphone industry doesn't exist
without their patents? That's not even what FRAND is about.
Even if Samsung's patents were critical to making
smartphones they didn't say that you can't make a smartphone
without them.
Why is apple excused but we should blame only the USPTO?
Your statement: "that may have been the bleatings of an
apple fan" - no, it's the bleating of someone who is
ignoring fact to focus on what they believe. In my
experience I find those type of people (such as your
comment) are blocked out and ignored - as they are
deliberate in their views being opposed to facts. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 11:10 AM EST |
Are you condoning presumption of guilt?
If someone's defence relies on showing that a patent is invalid, and instead of
following the courts instructions to investigate that fact, you presume it is
valid just so you can go home early, how can that be a fair trial?
How can that not open the jury to criticism?
Note the foreman himself said it looked like the jury would find in favour of
Samsung until he (incorrectly) convinced them that the prior art couldn't be
considered as it didn't run on the same processor.. So much of your reasoning
just doesn't fit with what we've heard.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 11:27 AM EST |
Wait, so even though you admit the foreman had a chip on his
shoulder, then you state that the other 11 came to the conclusion independently?
Did you forget that they were
leaning Samsung's way until the foreman with a chip on his
shoulder gave testimony?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 12:02 PM EST |
The presumption is that the government, who is paid well for
the
effort, vetted it carefully.
It doesn't matter what they presumed.
What matters is what
they were instructed to do - and they were instructed to
not
assume those patents were valid just because the USPTO said
so. They did
not follow those instructions, whether
independently or by the persuasions of a
delusional foreman
with a grudge on his shoulder, they did not follow
instructions. You have got to take off the bias goggles you
admitted to
wearing in order to properly read the facts.
FINAL JURY
INSTRUCTION NO. 18
...
For each party’s patent infringement claims
against the
other, the first issue you will have to decide is whether
the
alleged infringer has infringed the claims of the patent
holder’s patents and
whether those patents are valid.
...
"and whether those
patents are valid" is a very key portion
of that instruction that they did not
spend any time
discussing that aspect.---
IANAL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 01:38 PM EST |
The jury was not supposed to punish Samsung. The instructions explicitly forbade
this. They were just to help Apple recover costs if Samsung did indeed
infringe.
Therefore, the verdict is bologna, because they admitted doing exactly what they
were told not to do and what the case law forbids.
I begin to smell roasted troll.
---
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 Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 02:43 PM EST |
TRIPLE STRENGTH CAVEAT: Bolding on "if" is mine to stress the importance what
follows is heavy on speculation as I have no way of confirming the suspicion
that popped into my mind in the slightest. And the "circumstantial evidence"
identified alone, I wouldn't give the weight of a particle of
hydrogen.
The incredibly brief and circumstantial connection between the
two I find is the phrase:
Isn't it always understood that the jury
option is risky?
As I said: Incredibly circumstantial - to the
point of being non-existent.
On with the curious question:
I
wonder if this is the same anon who appears to apparently have a vested interest
of some type in protecting Hogan's behavior using reasoning such
as:
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 quote the parent as
saying:
My conclusion is that the jury independently and unanimously
decided that Samsung copied the iPhone and wanted to punish Samsung for
doing so.
IF the person is the same, and that is a mighty
big if, then the individual has just belied their own argument.
Now it's
possible that if - again, a mighty big if - the person is the same: the
person may have had a change of opinion based on the reasoning presented such as
Hogan using the phrase "slap on the wrist" - a synonym for punishment. It would
be nice for the individual to explicitly mention that from the perspective of
how some of us would view the post. It's an honorable thing to admit your
opinion was mistaken and new information has altered it.
It is not so
honorable however to appear to deliberately pretend the other opinion never
existed - if the person is the same, again mighty big. That would then
come across as simply attempting to try a new argument because the other
failed.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
