Apple may not extort a penny from Samsung...

[iGas]

Apple-Samsung judge considers possible juror misconduct

On October 30, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple's discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreman.

Judge Lucy H. Koh of the District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose division, wrote in her order on Thursday that the court will consider the questions "of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct."

No need for prime time movies, when you have a billion dollar entertainment like this.

 

[rommelrommel]

If anyone acted in a suspect manner, it's her.

 

[jpeyton]

Koh should count her blessings that she was handed this get-out-of-jail-free card for presiding over such a laughable verdict.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

koh is a fraud and a disgrace to the bench. i think its pretty funny how samsung is getting back at apple, raising prices on them. its like theyre saying "go ahead and win judgements in fraudulent biased american courts, well get our money back from you". i think that judge is now realizing shes not going to get away with that crap, considering every other court around the world is finding against apple

 

[Mopetar]

Koh should count her blessings that she was handed this get-out-of-jail-free card for presiding over such a laughable verdict.

Probably why she tried to get both companies to settle multiple times before the trial. She knew what could happen. I don't see how the verdict is her fault though.

koh is a fraud and a disgrace to the bench.

I think you misspelled "I disagree with the verdict."

 

[MotionMan]

Wow, the butthurt is strong in this thread.

Why so much hate for the judge? In the end, in was the jury members were the ones who found for Apple.

MotionMan

 

[dagamer34]

Koh should count her blessings that she was handed this get-out-of-jail-free card for presiding over such a laughable verdict.

It's not like the judge was the one who decided the verdict...

 

[jpeyton]

It's not like the judge was the one who decided the verdict...

No, she was merely the one that allowed Apple's farce to go to trial in the first place.

 

[MichaelBarg]

Apple-Samsung judge considers possible juror misconduct

On October 30, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple's discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreman.

Judge Lucy H. Koh of the District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose division, wrote in her order on Thursday that the court will consider the questions "of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct."

No need for prime time movies, when you have a billion dollar entertainment like this.

This just means that the court is hearing Samsung's post trial motions. That's normal, and doesn't really say anything about whether they will be successful. IIRC at the same hearing they are discussing all the other post trial motions including damage enhancements, permanent injunctions, and claims from both sides that the verdict was insufficient as a matter of law. Once all of those are resolved - and however they are resolved - probably early next year, the judgement will be final and set for appeal.

 

[Phokus]

No, she was merely the one that allowed Apple's farce to go to trial in the first place.

And she acted in a very one sided manner as well.

 

[MotionMan]

No, she was merely the one that allowed Apple's farce to go to trial in the first place.

And she acted in a very one sided manner as well.

How so?

MotionMan

 

[rise]

How so?

MotionMan

I forget all the particulars but I thought she didn't allow some very relevant evidence that would have hurt Apple? Previous art IIRC. I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

 

[MotionMan]

I forget all the particulars but I thought she didn't allow some very relevant evidence that would have hurt Apple? Previous art IIRC. I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

I am a lawyer and what I saw was typical litigation behavior by this judge. Judges rarely seem fair and impartial. If you want to see bias and one-sided rulings by a judge, you never have to look very hard.

People who latch on to the behavior of the judge are barking up the wrong tree.

MotionMan

 

[MrX8503]

How much is Samsung paying you to be so butthurt?

Enjoy your devices and let it go.

Nothing constructive to see here.

Moderator TheStu

 

[Mopetar]

I forget all the particulars but I thought she didn't allow some very relevant evidence that would have hurt Apple? Previous art IIRC. I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

It was some 'supposedly good' evidence that Samsung's own lawyers didn't bother to file with the court on time. There was nothing sinister about excluding it. Even then, there were some who thought that it wouldn't have mattered much anyway as it wasn't all that good as far as evidence goes.

 

[cheezy321]

In this thread:
Android guys talking like android guys. The butt hurt is strong in this thread. Its all the usual suspects.

You guys should get out more often.

Thanks for not adding anything constructive, this is everyone's first warning; keep it on topic, civil and constructive.

Moderator TheStu

 

[cl-scott]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. It seems like a pretty clear case where, intentional or not, the foreman misrepresented himself, and by some of his own admissions after the trial, he disregarded the judge's instructions for the jury. So unless it magically comes to light that the guy was acting with some kind of intentional malice against Samsung, and given the stakes, the best solution would seem to be to simply order a new trial. We do have a legal presumption of innocence in this country after all, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

[TuxDave]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. It seems like a pretty clear case where, intentional or not, the foreman misrepresented himself, and by some of his own admissions after the trial, he disregarded the judge's instructions for the jury. So unless it magically comes to light that the guy was acting with some kind of intentional malice against Samsung, and given the stakes, the best solution would seem to be to simply order a new trial. We do have a legal presumption of innocence in this country after all, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

If Rambus vs Hynix taught us anything, it's that letting a huge lawsuit like this go to the jury is like rolling the dice. It's a big crap shoot and people are terrible decision makers. Samsung definitely wants a reroll of the dice and they're riding a conspiracy theory to get it. I don't think straight up ordering a new trial is the best solution. The best solution is to figure out if his distant link to Samsung actually made any difference or not.

 

[meloz]

Why so much hate for the judge?

She is the one who presided over and orchestrated this mummer's farce of a trial. She could have simply thrown out Apple's laughable complaints and the case -such as it is- against Samsung.


I was going to selectively alter your second line, but you know what, it was all kind of out of bounds. I thought I had made myself clear earlier. Comments about the trial are OK, but sexist comments are over the line.

Moderator TheStu

 

[Oyeve]

In this thread:
Android guys talking like android guys. The butt hurt is strong in this thread. Its all the usual suspects.

You guys should get out more often.

Thanks for not adding anything constructive, this is everyone's first warning; keep it on topic, civil and constructive.

Moderator TheStu

Word.


When does this case go up again?

 

[Tom]

What's the deal with this forum ?

People can attack the American judicial system, a federal judge, and an American company, with relish, and that's ok with the moderator.

Not really seeing what those attacks have to do with mobil devices..

But anyone who questions the attacks, gets censored by the moderator ?

So what are we allowed to say ? Can I say that this federal judge has served with distinction, that there's no basis for attacking her ?

That in fact she granted Samsung the ability to investigate a possible problem.

Are we allowed to support the American patent system ? Or only its enemies allowed to comment ?

 

[Mopetar]

She is simply too dumb to be judging anything, and owes her position on the bench to her sex, not her intellect.

No need to be sexist.

What's the deal with this forum ?

People can attack the American judicial system, a federal judge, and an American company, with relish, and that's ok with the moderator.

As long as it's within the rules, that's fine.

Not really seeing what those attacks have to do with mobil devices..

Nothing really. Usually people who have an actual point to make don't go around making personal attacks.

But anyone who questions the attacks, gets censored by the moderator ?

There's a difference between questioning the attacks and posting thinly veiled inflammatory remarks that are just going to provoke similar remarks and derail the thread.

So what are we allowed to say ? Can I say that this federal judge has served with distinction, that there's no basis for attacking her ?

Yup.

That in fact she granted Samsung the ability to investigate a possible problem.

I wouldn't say the judge granted anything. It's Samsung's legal right (and their lawyers responsibility) to make sure everything was done according to proper legal procedure. Investigating a potential conflict of interest in one of the jurors is fair game.

Are we allowed to support the American patent system ? Or only its enemies allowed to comment ?

Support it all you like, but don't try to act like some kind of victim.

Also, while there is no hard rule about personal attacks made about people of interest, (e.g. I can say that George Bush is an idiot and it's not going to provoke much in the way of moderation) there is one against personal attacks made against other posters.

 

[cl-scott]

If Rambus vs Hynix taught us anything, it's that letting a huge lawsuit like this go to the jury is like rolling the dice. It's a big crap shoot and people are terrible decision makers. Samsung definitely wants a reroll of the dice and they're riding a conspiracy theory to get it. I don't think straight up ordering a new trial is the best solution. The best solution is to figure out if his distant link to Samsung actually made any difference or not.

I don't really care about that distant link except for the fact that the guy was asked pretty point blank if he'd ever been involved in a lawsuit before, and he answered no... Under pain of perjury. Now giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming he wasn't trying to be deceitful, we could excuse him from the penalties of perjury, but that seems like pretty good grounds for claiming that the trial was tainted before it even began. Then again, the usual IANAL disclaimers apply, so whether or not that meets the legal burden needed for a new trial I can't really say with authority.

I would say however, that a new trial in some sleepy backwater jurisdiction well away from any major Apple or Samsung holdings, would be a great way to remove all doubt. If Apple's case is as strong as they like to claim, and can keep from the kinds of things that prompted UK courts to smack them around a little, then they should have no problem winning again.

 

[TerryMathews]

What's the deal with this forum ?

People can attack the American judicial system, a federal judge, and an American company, with relish, and that's ok with the moderator.

Not really seeing what those attacks have to do with mobil devices..

But anyone who questions the attacks, gets censored by the moderator ?

So what are we allowed to say ? Can I say that this federal judge has served with distinction, that there's no basis for attacking her ?

That in fact she granted Samsung the ability to investigate a possible problem.

Are we allowed to support the American patent system ? Or only its enemies allowed to comment ?

As usual, you oversimplify and see things the way you want to.

The issue is you have the Android "guys" debating the verdict with facts and logic, doing things like citing transcripts.

And then you have people like those who got scolded not adding to the discussion and just complaining that the Android "guys" are a bunch of bitchy girls, apologies to Sam from Burn Notice.

A different viewpoint is welcome; debate it. Name calling by itself is counter productive and doesn't add to the substance of the conversation.

I do kind of see your point regarding Koh but the counterpoint to your argument is that some of her trial decisions were debatable. I remember something about excluding prior art due to the amount of time it took Samsung to submit it.

Being a judge doesn't automatically make every decision above reproach. If that were the case, we would have no need for an appeals system.

 

[TuxDave]

I don't really care about that distant link except for the fact that the guy was asked pretty point blank if he'd ever been involved in a lawsuit before, and he answered no... Under pain of perjury. Now giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming he wasn't trying to be deceitful, we could excuse him from the penalties of perjury, but that seems like pretty good grounds for claiming that the trial was tainted before it even began. Then again, the usual IANAL disclaimers apply, so whether or not that meets the legal burden needed for a new trial I can't really say with authority.

I would say however, that a new trial in some sleepy backwater jurisdiction well away from any major Apple or Samsung holdings, would be a great way to remove all doubt. If Apple's case is as strong as they like to claim, and can keep from the kinds of things that prompted UK courts to smack them around a little, then they should have no problem winning again.

Back to my original point of "Going to jury is a crap shoot". It's clearly in Samsung's favor to try again. People think the first decision was the most idiotic decision ever. I think it goes back and forth between "Samsung's lawyers are idiots" "The judge is an idiot" "The jury are idiots" "Apple cheated". Either way, I'm sure everyone is a couch-lawyer and thinks they could easily present a case that would guarantee a victory.

So yeah, even if Apple's case is solid, it's still going to be a crapshoot at the end of the day.