• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jury Misconduct in the Samsung V Apple case

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nintendesert said:
That is a good point and something anyone involved with investigations/official statements etc. is, you answer the question asked and not more than that.

The question is worded incorrectly if the intent was to find out about all lawsuits the potential juror was a part of. Perhaps I missed any followup questions to that one asking how many. The intent however may not have been to find out how many but if someone had any prior knowledge or experience at all with the subject matter.

WP7 and soon to be WP8 user here. Don't burn me!! 😱
Click to expand...

You're correct. If you read the transcript from the court the reason they asked those questions were to make sure that the prospective jurors would be indifferent to the case. They clearly wanted to know if you had any experience in court that would affect your judgement. The judge even asked all the civil claims court jurors whether or not those experiences would affect their decision.
 
Hmoobphajej said:
Well if you read the transcripts from the court, it clearly states that they were to base the verdict solely on the basis of the evidence presented in the trial. But from all the media outlets and article he talked to; he included his experience with patents, their process, and his feelings about them in the final decision of his verdict. To me that's just wrong when they clearly said that those experiences wouldn't effect their ability to be a fair juror.
Click to expand...

And this is why you never let major lawsuits go to jury because it's impossible to get a group of people to behave like robots with no prior knowledge. I was a juror once and they asked if I could put aside my engineering knowledge of collisions and only rely on evidence portrayed in the trial. So yeah, I had to pretend that I have no idea where objects go after they get hit. Try doing that.
 
Regardless of the outcome of this appeal, Samsung has greatly benefited from the publicity this trial created:

http://www.localytics.com/blog/2012/samsung-benefiting-from-iphone-comparisons/

GS3-Growth-550x339.png


This comes in addition to news that the GS3 held onto the top sales spot in the UK after the iPhone 5 launch.
 
True that's definitely a problem with jurors. But there were allegations that he knowingly said yes he could put aside his experience in order to land the seat as a juror. At the same time the area the trial was conducted in has a much higher chance of producing jurors with such knowledge and experience.
 
Considering how poorly Samsung's legal team in the US performed - especially compared to their victories elsewhere - I'm not surprised they were simply incompetent.

Whether this comes out to anything remains to be seen, but the jury foremans ramblings after the trial suggest that this will definitely get a look

edit: Also surprised that Samsung ever let it get to jury anyways, especially on something very technical. The majority of Americans are not very technical
 
Last edited:
With the obligatory IANAL disclaimer, and the fact that I will delight in seeing Tim Cook drive Apple into the ground after personally being subjected to abuse by several levels of Apple management going all the way up to the Chief Compliance Officer Tom Moyer...

I think at the very least Samsung should be granted a mistrial based on the comments this guy made after the trial about how he pretty much convinced the jury to completely disregard the judges instructions, and now there's his failing to disclose this particular fact during jury selection. I would think the latter might well be grounds for a nice little vacation in a jail cell for contempt of court.

It would seem to me that the easiest and most fair solution to this whole problem is to just vacate the jury's decision and retry the case with a different judge and jury. Any injunctions issued would be lifted until a new judge had a chance to evaluate them. I'd also move the venue to some complete and total legal backwater, like say Alaska or Rhode Island, where neither company has a strong presence. Personally I'd like to see it land in the same court as the guy who tossed out the Motorola v Apple case, but that almost certainly won't happen, and as long as they keep it out of that patent troll friendly district in Texas, (Apple also has a large campus in Austin and Houston for dodging CA state taxes) then I could accept it.

If Samsung loses again, then so be it.
 
^^

Its hard to even respond to people who only get their information from Groklaw. Just because it has the word 'law' in it does not mean it is a good source of information or even a good source at all.
 
Last edited:
Well it's not like all the points brought up here are from the article. They're from the court transcripts themselves. Unless those documents are fudged I don't have a reason not to consider what they presented in this discussion.
 
Hmoobphajej said:
Well it's not like all the points brought up here are from the article. They're from the court transcripts themselves. Unless those documents are fudged I don't have a reason not to consider what they presented in this discussion.
Click to expand...

1. The jurors did not ignore any of the judges instructions. Another lie perpetuated by Groklaw.

2. The anti-apple crowd has painted the foreman as some devious patent troll with an axe to grind with Seagate, Samsung and whatever company they can connect with Samsung this week. Yes, he failed to admit he was part of a lawsuit 19 years ago. How did Samsung or Apple fail to find out this information during jury selection? Or did one / both parties know about it and just not care?

It is downright embarrassing the lengths the anti-apple crowd is going to try and claim bias in this trial. Seriously. Quit reading Groklaw, it is poisoning your mind.
 
cheezy321 said:
^^

Its hard to even respond to people who only get their information from Groklaw. Just because it has the word 'law' in it does not mean it is a good source of information or even a good source at all.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about, Groklaw is extremely respected amongst journalists and was the only site that unraveled the SCO vs. Everyone litigation.
 
cheezy321 said:
1. The jurors did not ignore any of the judges instructions. Another lie perpetuated by Groklaw.

2. The anti-apple crowd has painted the foreman as some devious patent troll with an axe to grind with Seagate, Samsung and whatever company they can connect with Samsung this week. Yes, he failed to admit he was part of a lawsuit 19 years ago. How did Samsung or Apple fail to find out this information during jury selection? Or did one / both parties know about it and just not care?

It is downright embarrassing the lengths the anti-apple crowd is going to try and claim bias in this trial. Seriously. Quit reading Groklaw, it is poisoning your mind.
Click to expand...

Adding his experience to the jury discussion was disregarding the instructions of the judge who said explicitly to disregard all prior experience and only look at the trial with the evidence. Even him stating that he wanted to punish patent offenders was a disregard to what the judge instructed. The fact that he sued seagate and loss shouldn't relevant at all but it is one of the arguments samsung is trying to make. But in my opinion the only real basis for a mistrial is whether or not he knowingly went in there and influenced the verdict in a way that shouldn't have been. I'm more then open to evidence that says he did not in some way influence the decision of other jurors with what he said during jury discussion. I have yet to it see it be brought up in this discussion.
 
Last edited:
cheezy321 said:
1. The jurors did not ignore any of the judges instructions. Another lie perpetuated by Groklaw.

2. The anti-apple crowd has painted the foreman as some devious patent troll with an axe to grind with Seagate, Samsung and whatever company they can connect with Samsung this week. Yes, he failed to admit he was part of a lawsuit 19 years ago. How did Samsung or Apple fail to find out this information during jury selection? Or did one / both parties know about it and just not care?

It is downright embarrassing the lengths the anti-apple crowd is going to try and claim bias in this trial. Seriously. Quit reading Groklaw, it is poisoning your mind.
Click to expand...

1: Sure they did. The foreman himself has been quite the little blabbermouth since the trial ended, and basically said as much himself.

2: I'll grant that the fact that he was involved in some lawsuit almost two decades ago against a company that has only very recently become financially linked to Samsung is a reach, but whether or not either side knew, the fact still remains the guy committed perjury. I'm assuming you're under oath when you're asked those questions. Saying it was just some kind of linguistic syntax issue that caused confusion is about as specious an argument as the axe to grind against Seagate, and using Samsung as a proxy.

So whether or not he had some kind of axe to grind against Samsung because of their involvement with Seagate, who knows... But given things the guy has said HIMSELF after the trial, like how he had made up his mind Samsung was guilty well before the end of the trial, it seems like Samsung absolutely deserves a new trial. Somewhere far away from where Apple is kind of the hometown hero company, and Samsung similarly doesn't have any major operations going on. Seriously, for those of us who live in the SF Bay Area, you know what I'm talking about when a lot of the valley lives in its own little bubble, and the Cult of Apple is particularly strong. So getting the trial moved a looooong ways away in some sleepy little judicial backwater would just mean that if Samsung still loses, there wouldn't be much of a leg to stand on for people that are basically your doppleganger cheezy.
 
There are some days where I think threads like this should just be moved to P&N as they really don't do much but cause arguments between the two religious factions. I'm also very glad I don't have a dog in this race as I personally don't make any money with either camp.
 
cheezy321 said:
Its hard to even respond to people who only get their information from Groklaw. Just because it has the word 'law' in it does not mean it is a good source of information or even a good source at all.
Click to expand...

It's even harder to argue with someone who has cited no sources, and his opinion comes from his blind love and worship of Apple.
 
BladeVenom said:
It's even harder to argue with someone who has cited no sources, and his opinion comes from his blind love and worship of Apple.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say bro. Here are 2 sources, both of which are not from a biased and misleading like groklaw.

Here is a source:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/apple-calls-samsungs-allegation-of-jury.html

"Among other failings, Samsung's motion does not even address, let alone disclose, when Samsung learned the facts on which it bases its misconduct allegations, and in particular, whether Samsung impermissibly delayed raising this issue, as the facts Samsung does disclose suggest."
Click to expand...

"On the afternoon of September 24, Apple asked Samsung to disclose how and when it learned of each of the facts underlying its allegations and notified Samsung of its intent to file an expedited motion to compel such disclosure if Samsung does not provide it voluntarily. Apple is waiting for Samsung's response."
Click to expand...

And one by Thomson Reuters:
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...57594&terms=@ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+'ANV'

It will be tough for Samsung to show that a 20-year-old financial dispute between Hogan and his onetime employer had a direct bearing on the jury award in this case
Click to expand...

As for his CL-scotts post here you go:
he pretty much convinced the jury to completely disregard the judges instructions
Click to expand...

I am guessing he is referring to 1 of 2 things.

1. The quote from one of the jurors saying 'they skipped all prior art completely'. They never skipped prior art. They were stuck on the bounce back and pinch to zoom patents and couldnt come to a conclusion on those. So they skipped them, went thru the patents where they came to a unanimous decision, then went back to those patents and prior art and discussed them after coming to a unanimous decision on all the other issues.

2. The quote from the foreman on the damages:
"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."
Samsung's damages expert testified the margin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jury picked a number slightly above that, Hogan said.
Click to expand...
They based the damages off of Samsungs own numbers. Not apples. They just upped the damages a little more than 12% margin.
People are saying he wanted to punish Samsung with the damages. He said it should not be too low and it should not be too high. Apple asked for 2.75 billion. They awarded Apple $1 billion. If he wanted to 'punish' Samsung then why did the jury use Samsungs' numbers and not Apples?
 
Last edited:
Skel said:
There are some days where I think threads like this should just be moved to P&N as they really don't do much but cause arguments between the two religious factions. I'm also very glad I don't have a dog in this race as I personally don't make any money with either camp.
Click to expand...

You've got to admit, it is entertaining to see how iAcolytes put up any kind of preposterous arguments even when proven wrong.

This goes beyond brand loyalty when people are willing to be raked over coals before they see their favorite company tarnished in any way. 😵
 
ponyo said:
Florian Mueller not biased and misleading? 😵 Are you for real? The man is paid shill. He will whore out to anyone who he thinks will pay him.
Click to expand...

Did I quote what he wrote once? I quoted what was written in apples response to samsung

Yeah and this is coming from the same guys who think groklaw is a good source 🙄
 
Please explain how it was flawed.
Click to expand...

Conflict of interest on two counts-

The juror was a former paid employee for one of the companies with a financial stake in the outcome of the trial.

The juror was involved in a lawsuit with one of the companies with a financial stake in the outcome of the trial.

This isn't borderline, this is definitively conflict of interest on two of the four main criteria involved in the standard(only one is necessary for automatic exclusion).

Furthermore- If he stated he had not been involved in a lawsuit previously, then he committed a crime to become part of the jury.

Samsung's challenges- the potential juror should have been excluded based on two standards of conflict of interest. One of them would have been enough, and does not consume one of Samsung's challenges(which are not infinite).
 
Rayb said:
You've got to admit, it is entertaining to see how iAcolytes put up any kind of preposterous arguments even when proven wrong.

This goes beyond brand loyalty when people are willing to be raked over coals before they see their favorite company tarnished in any way. 😵
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, it's entertaining as hell, that's why I read these threads. I do have to point out though, it's not just the "iAcolytes" that are doing it, both sides of the camp are engaged on such a level that you'd think the fate of the world was at stake.
 
Skel said:
Oh yeah, it's entertaining as hell, that's why I read these threads. I do have to point out though, it's not just the "iAcolytes" that are doing it, both sides of the camp are engaged on such a level that you'd think the fate of the world was at stake.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be an apple/Android issue.

The state of the legal shenanigans going down is bad enough as it is without this asshat making it worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top