decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
When the foreman starts inventing law out of his febrile imagination (prior art
isn't prior art because it doesn't run on an iPad, while at the same time
Android is infringing in spite of the fact that it doesn't run on an
iPad)--what's not to overrule?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hogan: "We skipped over the prior art part, that was too hard"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT
Seagate v Hogan, not disclosed in voir dire. Cited cases say this is sufficient
evidence of bad faith in the form of bias to set aside a verdict, since the
juror is prevaricating to get himself on the jury.

Hogan, instead of discarding his prior experience of patenting, and using only
what was presented at trial, as he promised in voir dire, brought it to the
whole jury, according to himself and another witness, in public.

"Deciding to teach Samsung a Lesson", rather than follow instructions
that actual damages only were to be decided on.

Need I say more? This is rather public disobedience to the judge -- in England,
I'm told they put people in jail for such.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

thank you for cleaning up your language
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
Your second bite at the apple isn't any more convincing than
the previous, though.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Since you asked nicely
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 03:55 PM EDT

It's been said before, but here's a repeat on just one of the issues.

From the Jury Instructions, "Final Jury Instruction No. 35 Utility Patent Damages - Burden Of Proof" (page 49 of the linked PDF) contains:

You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
You should award only those damages that the patent holder proves it suffered by a preponderance of the evidence.
Neither patent holder is entitled to damages that are remote or speculative.
Bolding mine for emphasis. From Mr. Hogan:
"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."
The Jury instruction identified is quite clear (and repeated in other Jury instructions):
    It was not one of the Jury's duties to punish.
Yet Mr. Hogan clearly spoke towards punishment rather then just identifying the proven damages.

Your turn:

    Please identify where - in either the Jury Instructions or the Law - that which over-rode the Jury Instruction not to find "damages to punish"!


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT

I haven't read the followup comments to this, but here's my interpretation (sorry if it matches other comments, and turns out that I'm not adding anything more).

The court basically said "I realize that you have personal experience in this matter, but can you set that aside and only base your decision on what I tell you is the law?"

Not I will rely on your personal life experience to guide the other jurors to a decision based on the law. The quote that you put in right below your statement about how the court must expect the foreman to guide the other jurors basically nullifies your statement. I can't see how it " was obviously not meant to cancel this Court acknowledged function within the jury. "

It seems pretty clear to me. You have experience (not in the outcome, but EXPERIENCE) in Patent cases and lawsuits. If you can't put that aside, then you shouldn't serve.

basically you obviously will bring your life experience to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?"
Have a great day.:)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
... What specifically did he do with his fellow jurors that was not part of "bring your life experience to your role as a juror"?

Not grokin' your Groking

You would have intentionally ignore the contextual meaning of the word "experience" to say that the foreman could use NOTHING from his previous experience to inform his role in the jury.
The jury's duty is to adjudge the veracity of the testimony, evaluate the arguments of the case based on the evidence provided, and to apply the law as instructed by the court. It is appropriate for jury members to employ their "life experiences" in performing these tasks (this is their "role" in the trial).

It is not the jury's role to interpret the law, nor is it to introduce new evidence or arguments that were not presented during the trial -- regardless whether one's "life experience" suggests otherwise.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: miltonw on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT
If you can't read and understand the articles in Groklaw, perhaps you should
stick with simpler blogs.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
Nobody is moving on, including Samsung. The
issue is now on the table, before the judge.
It may not work with her, but there is an
appeals court to come. That is who will
decide this issue, which is now not going to
go away.

So you can stop telling us to forgeddaboudit.
I was right to notice the problem, and you
were wrong. That's the bottom line. You need
to be the one, therefore, to move on from your
position, which time and events have now
demonstrated to be wrong.

Can you do it? If not, just be aware that
commenters on Groklaw will not be deciding
the matter. It's much bigger than that now.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )