Jury Misconduct in the Samsung V Apple case

[Phokus]

Oh hey, our "favorite" jury foreman is back again, what did he do now?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

OH

MY

GOD

Hahahahahaha, holy crap, this guy is a never ending source of laughs.

TLDR: The foreman was sued by Seagate (which Samsung is a majority shareholder) and he and his wife went into bankrupcy as a result. He didn't reveal it when being interviewed by the judge. The only reason they found out was because one of the partners in the lawfirm that represented samsung is married to one of the lawyers representing seagate who sued the foreman.

This story is amazing.

If judge koh doesn't throw this out, the only explanation is she's being paid under the table by apple.

 

[Oyeve]

Nice. Glad to see this resurface as I felt the whole thing was wonky. Retrial or dismiss.

 

[openwheel]

Time to throw out that ridiculous verdict and start a fair trial.

 

[Red Storm]

Interesting.

 

[Phokus]

Next week: We learn the Jury Foreman is a massive racist!

 

[WelshBloke]

If this results in the decision being thrown out that guy needs to get charged with a proportion of the legal costs.

 

[TuxDave]

If judge koh doesn't throw this out, the only explanation is she's being paid under the table by apple.

lol, because he's holding a 20 year grudge against Seagate and found a way to exact revenge on that company through its shareholder. I'm sure Seagate is feeling that one.

Personally, I would've punted him out because of his patent experience "Hogan, who told the court he had served on three juries in civil cases, spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his". No idea why Samsung let him stay. pfft...

 

[Phokus]

lol, because he's holding a 20 year grudge against Seagate and found a way to exact revenge on that company through its shareholder. I'm sure Seagate is feeling that one.

Personally, I would've punted him out because of his patent experience "Hogan, who told the court he had served on three juries in civil cases, spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his". No idea why Samsung let him stay. pfft...

Majority shareholder. Which means consolidated company.

 

[TuxDave]

Majority shareholder. Which means consolidated company.

"major" shareholder. A little different.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Note: he didn't reveal it because the court did not ask him specifically about the case.

They asked if he was ever involved in "a lawsuit", not how many lawsuits he has been involved with.

So hold yer horses... it might not be all roses.

 

[cheezy321]

What if it comes out that Samsung knew this all along? They could have just revealed it after the case in hopes of nullifying the verdict in case they lost. They could be in huge trouble if true.

Seriously, this information comes out now? After the jury was decided over 3 months ago? Sounds pretty fishy to me and I wouldn't put it past Samsung to play shady games.

 

[zoiks]

What if it comes out that Samsung knew this all along? They could have just revealed it after the case in hopes of nullifying the verdict in case they lost. They could be in huge trouble if true.

Seriously, this information comes out now? After the jury was decided over 3 months ago? Sounds pretty fishy to me and I wouldn't put it past Samsung to play shady games.

It's not fishy at all. This guy was suspect of bias right after the trial ended and his identity was known to the public. He made a bunch of comments about his owning patents and that patent violaters need to be "punished". Although the trial was not about the jury "punishing" Samsung in the first place.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ly-ignoring-prior-art-other-key-factors.shtml

 

[Phokus]

What if it comes out that Samsung knew this all along? They could have just revealed it after the case in hopes of nullifying the verdict in case they lost. They could be in huge trouble if true.

Seriously, this information comes out now? After the jury was decided over 3 months ago? Sounds pretty fishy to me and I wouldn't put it past Samsung to play shady games.

Tinfoil hat much?

 

[kyrax12]

Next week: We learn the Jury Foreman is a massive racist!

What does racism have to do with anything?

 

[dagamer34]

Note: he didn't reveal it because the court did not ask him specifically about the case.

They asked if he was ever involved in "a lawsuit", not how many lawsuits he has been involved with.

So hold yer horses... it might not be all roses.

The court asked him about any cases and lies of omission are still lies. Here's the actual question:

HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?

The problem arises that he's stated that he only thought about the last 10 years, though the question doesn't say that anywhere.

 

[Phokus]

What does racism have to do with anything?

I was making a joke (although, at this point, it really wouldn't surprise me considering how many ridiculous stories of this clown jury foreman have come out).

Samsung = Korean company.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The court asked him about any cases and lies of omission are still lies. Here's the actual question:

HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?

The problem arises that he's stated that he only thought about the last 10 years, though the question doesn't say that anywhere.

I don't see "any" in that question. I see "have you ever been involved in a lawsuit".

"Any case" and "a lawsuit" are completely different meanings... and completely different contexts.

You can blame the confusion on the language.

 

[Phokus]

I don't see "any" in that question. I see "have you ever been involved in a lawsuit".

"Any case" and "a lawsuit" are completely different meanings... and completely different contexts.

You can blame the confusion on the language.

the court: okay. welcome back. please take a seat. we had a few more departures in your absence. let's continue with the questions. the next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?”

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

 

[cheezy321]

Tinfoil hat much?

So you want to believe the following:
-Judge Koh is being paid by Apple
-This juror has a grudge against Samsung because of Seagate. Yet Seagate and Samsung had nothing to do with each other for almost the last two decades. I hope you understand Samsung became a 9.6% shareholder of Seagate last year, not 19 years ago.

I have the tinfoil hat on for believing that a husband and wife talk to each other about their jobs? LOL

 

[runawayprisoner]

the court: okay. welcome back. please take a seat. we had a few more departures in your absence. let's continue with the questions. the next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?”

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

Again, where in that question does it ask him about "any case"?

I'm only seeing "a lawsuit" there...

And no matter how I read the entire thing over and over again, I keep seeing just this:

Court: have you ever been involved in a lawsuit?
Dude: yes... with this other dude
Court: cool, man. How did you feel about it?

I don't think the court wanted to ask him about "how many lawsuits" he has been in. The court just wanted to know if he has ever been to a courtroom before.

That's all it boils down to to me. I don't see how he lied either by omission or by anything else. The court never asked the question that many are assuming it did...

 

[Red Storm]

So you want to believe the following:
-Judge Koh is being paid by Apple
-This juror has a grudge against Samsung because of Seagate. Yet Seagate and Samsung had nothing to do with each other for almost the last two decades. I hope you understand Samsung became a 9.6% shareholder of Seagate last year, not 19 years ago.

I have the tinfoil hat on for believing that a husband and wife talk to each other about their jobs? LOL

Considering the trial was this year, there's nothing wrong with the line of thinking that he had an ax to grind and did so.

 

[Phokus]

Again, where in that question does it ask him about "any case"?

I'm only seeing "a lawsuit" there...

And no matter how I read the entire thing over and over again, I keep seeing just this:

Court: have you ever been involved in a lawsuit?
Dude: yes... with this other dude
Court: cool, man. How did you feel about it?

I don't think the court wanted to ask him about "how many lawsuits" he has been in. The court just wanted to know if he has ever been to a courtroom before.

That's all it boils down to to me. I don't see how he lied either by omission or by anything else. The court never asked the question that many are assuming it did...

You're being pedantic, i'm pretty sure the reasoning for that question isn't to find out if they've ever been part of a lawsuit and end it at that, but also to figure out if there are any conflicts of interest.

 

[cheezy321]

Considering the trial was this year, there's nothing wrong with the line of thinking that he had an ax to grind and did so.

Fair enough, but its not like he was sued recently over this. It was 19 years ago.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the line of thinking that Samsung knew about this before the trial even started. Samsung has a lot of motivation to hold this card until the case is over. Then they can scream 'BIAS!' if they lose. If they win they never speak of it again.

 

[dagamer34]

Fair enough, but its not like he was sued recently over this. It was 19 years ago.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the line of thinking that Samsung knew about this before the trial even started. Samsung has a lot of motivation to hold this card until the case is over. Then they can scream 'BIAS!' if they lose. If they win they never speak of it again.

I don't think anyone easily forgets a bankruptcy though, especially if it deals with patents in a court case that deals with patents.

 

[Red Storm]

I don't think anyone easily forgets a bankruptcy though, especially if it deals with patents in a court case that deals with patents.

Exactly. It seems like he intentionally withheld information that would most likely take him off the case.