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.

Respecting juries. | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES document thread
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:18 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:25 AM EDT
Some interesting quotes:
Claim 50 uses such a term of degree, requiring that the first and second "boxes of content" be "substantially centered" on the touch-screen display. JX 1046.49 (emphasis added.) [...] There are no tests, parameters, or other criteria for determining whether such a box is or is not "substantially centered."
Indeed, the indefiniteness of the asserted patents is evident from the patents themselves (JX1040, JX1041, JX1042, JX1043) patents that the Court itself has previously observed are inconsistent and sloppy. 7/24/12 Hearing Tr. at 20:19-21:4 ("[W]ith several of these design patents, there's unfortunate inconsistency or sloppiness in how it's done. . . . What am I supposed to make of this other than, you know, there may have been some unfortunate prosecution here?"). The views of the D‘889 patent make it impossible to know which way the device should be oriented and where certain environmental features should go.
And so on... in exhibit 1988. Essentially, Samsung is picking apart Apple's patent applications, for any items that are not consistent with patent application rules (using broken/solid/thin/dotted lines consistently, claim language, etc.). ~cd

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think this Judge will push on through regardless.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

1979-1993 -- Ah, to be young again! (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:50 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could this have repercussions on the jury foreman
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT
In the UK there have been cases when a member of the jury has been slightly less than honest about things applicable to a trial before being sworn in. When this is found out (either during or after the trial) the dishonest juror normally ends up standing in front of the beaks answering some very pointed questions. More often or not the juror ends up being sent down for a month or more in order to reflect on the error of their ways; this is normally treated as Contempt of Court, but I remember one particularly bad case in which the jury member was sent down for Perjury. Either way the dishonest juror ends up with a criminal record and a heavy fine, and a mistrial is declared so everything has to start over.

My question is - in the US legal system could the jury foreman face similar sanctions? If so then he might come to regret his motor-mouth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speculation thread on Apple's reply
Authored by: pem on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 09:27 AM EDT
"Obviously, he's not biased"

"No, he didn't act as an expert witness"

"Even if he did, Samsung's cited cases don't show there is any


Should be fun to watch the dance, as long as you're in the right frame of mind.
Otherwise, might be very angry-making.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seagate vs Hogan
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
I think the core of the story lies in this case.
Was it possible that people from Samsung were witnesses?
I didn't see this mentioned in voir dire at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Respecting juries.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT
This whole situation has had me thinking about juries.

I have been through voir dire several times, but never been
put on a jury. I suspect that I never will because I
wouldn't want to be on a jury with a judge who would be
willing to have me for a juror. Ok seriously I don't think I
will ever bew on a jury because of so many things that would
make each side wary of me. I think ( seriously ) that the
smartest lawyer is the one who could trick the other lawyer
into getting rid of me.

For the most part juries have a hard thankless job, where
they put in a lot of hours, for very little pay under many
uncomfortable conditions. They deserve our respect and
gratitude, but the events in this trial caused me to think a

Certainly a real jury, a legitimate jury deserves our
respect and gratitude, but does a false one? Don't parties
in a civil or criminal matter deserve to be heard by real

Certainly all due respect should be given a real jury, but
shouldn't it be a responsibility of the court to validate
that the jury was a real jury. If questions arise shouldn't
the court seriously investigate those questions in any way
then can?

I'm thinking of something similar to double jeopardy, where
a person can be tried a second time if they bribed the judge
or took jurors family members hostage. The argument there is
that jeopardy never attached, b ecause the defendent was
never actually in jeopardy.

I've heard of drunk jurors and sleeping jurors and all sorts
of other stupidities, and it really bothers me to let those
verdicts stand.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: PolR on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
From the article:
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?

Let's see. On the first row, who would raise their hand to that question? All right. let's go to Mr. Hogan.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately, across the next few months, it was dismissed and in such a fashion that neither one of us could sue the other one for that matter.

From the table of authorities:
Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan
Where does this case fit with the foreman answers? I don't find it there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reminds me of a Jury I was on
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT
In the early 90s I was on a Jury in Las Vegas where a woman flipped her car and
blamed it on a truck pulling in front of her. All witnesses testified that the
truck was at least 2 car lengths ahead of her and never came closer. But the
jury foreman convinced everyone that the truck (commercially owned) was at least
10% responsible and since the damages (of no documented or visible injuries)
where worth $300,000 dollars, the verdict should be for $30,000. I still am
outraged at this manipulation by the jury foreman to this day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a very interesting early 'iPAD'. from LG, 2001
Authored by: john-from-ct on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT
The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week. The device was demonstrated running on the latest version of the Linux kernel, 2.4. First unveiled in January, the iPAD is aimed at home users wanting Internet access and multimedia thrills without all the bells and whistles of a conventional PC. from: Clicky to news article.

Just another greybeard geek!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't think formally sanctioning the juror is in the cases. Only public embarrassment-n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Really, ya'll gotta get over your butthurt about the jury's decision
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
No, really. Please. Get over yourselves.

Remember the Oracle v. Google trial? That jury also made a number of questionable statements post-judgement. One of the most damning, that mysteriously nobody seems to have picked up on, was a juror's opinion that "more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go for limits on openness. Ie they were pro google." [1]

Uhhh, excuse me? "Limits on openness"?!? Was "limits on openness" ever supposed to be a consideration? Was it ever mentioned in the Judge's instructions that they should consider "limits on openness"? Was "limits on openness" a matter of fact to be decided by the jury? Was it on the jury form? Is Android even "open" outside of Google's propaganda?!? [2]

Of course, that's not the only indication they didn't "get the issues". Remember, this jury was told to assume APIs were copyrightable and "was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use"[3]! Wholesale copying is fair use?! Not to mention the fact that they thought the line-for-line duplication of rangeCheck was not copying, which even the Judge had to overturn.

Where was the outrage back then? Oh, they returned a decision you all agreed with, so that's just fine and dandy!

Compared to that jury, this Velvin Hogan fella comes off as downright reasonable. About the only thing he may have been wrong about is that Apple didn't infringe Samsung's '460 patent, and personally I think he was wrong insofar as the Doctrine of Equivalents applies. That's worth, what, a few million in damages to Samsung? I can't find any statements from him as to dispensing advice to fellow jurors about patent law... only opinions about the validity and infringement of the patents -- as the court asked him to.

[1] https ://twi
[2] Open source is not exactly "open". See: SkyHook lawsuit, Acer/Aliyun. Keep in mind non-Google-approved forks of AOSP are not officially and legally, in the trademark sense, "Android". Android is, ironically, about as "open" as Java is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does Mr. Hogan post here anonymously?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT
After reading most of the comments to this article it got me thinking - it would
make sense, wouldn't it? According to reports isn't he an IT guy, with an
apparent ego? After the end of trial if he Googled his name surely he would
have found this site, if he wasn't aware of it already. I think it would be
human nature (for many humans) to want to clear their name, to write things
defending that "dear ol' Hogan guy."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT
From the Court ... "basically you obviously will bring your life
experience to your role as a juror"

I have heard nothing in the statements from the other jurors other
than descriptions of what the Court itself had already acknowledged
as to what resources this juror had to offer his potential fellow jurists.

I have heard nothing at all about what particular instruction(s) from
the court which he and/or the jury disregarded.

The court appears to fully expect him; regardless, to help his fellow
jurors understand the details of the various infrastructures he had
personal knowledge about.

The verbiage that follows, " 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?", was obviously not meant to cancel this Court
acknowledged function within the jury. It's unfortunate the the court
chose the words "previous experience" instead of something like
"previous outcome". The Courts choice of words enables abusers of
language to redefine the statement for their own purposes; as they
most certainly have.

The final statement of the Court to this juror was as to whether the
(eventual foreman) would follow the Courts instructions. Which
instructions, specifically, where ignored? 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.

Both sides had the opportunity to give the guy a no go. It didn't
happen. Lets move on here

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, or other helpful souls, what's with the senior partner of the firm signing off transcripts?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT
That is, both Apple and Samsung have a filing with a *long* list of trial
excerpts, which end with the senior partner of the respective law firms signing
off that the attached are true and correct copies, and saying he is prepared to
testify on those excerpts?

What's the purpose of such filings?
(My non-lawyer epidermis is showing!)(grin)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogan is talking again!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT

Samsung goes after jury foreman in bid to reverse Apple verdict

In an exclusive interview Tuesday about Samsung's secret new allegations, Hogan, an engineer, confirmed that he was a party in two cases cited in Samsung's brief, a 1993 case from municipal court in Santa Cruz titled Seagate Technology v. Hogan and a 1993 federal bankruptcy case titled In re Velvin R. Hogan. According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect his house.

Hogan is being simple with the truth when explaining who sued who. Seagate is the Plaintiff and Hogan is the defendant. Hogan filed a cross complaint. Go to Santa Cruz Case Inquiry and search under Court Case Number => MS930919, then click on the highlighted number in the listing to see the details. At the top of the page, click on Case Report to see everything at once.

This may not be a big deal but on the other hand, it is consistent with Hogan seeing things that are important only from his perspective. That may also be what got him into friction with Seagate. This could get interesting. If this is a character trait/flaw of his, he won't stop defending himself because he can't and he will never admit that he's wrong. Also, someone like this could never follow the rules of court if it is not to their liking and Samsung would have every reason to have the verdict overturned and a new trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury instructions
Authored by: miltonw on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT

I was called to jury duty and was selected to sit on a case last week.

While this case was not nearly as important as this one, I noticed the following instruction from the judge:

"In your deliberations, you may only use evidence that was presented in court. You may not rely on information from elsewhere, including your own experiences."

This was, rather obviously, boilerplate instructions that the judge gives for all cases -- and it is the law. Those who would claim that you should be able to rely on your own "evidence" are not thinking it through. The "facts" that you might think are applicable and important have not been vetted by the judge nor have they been properly challenged by the attorneys.

You simply cannot take the law into your own hands and decide your "evidence" should be included, as Hogan has. It is not justice by any definition.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT

What I like about Apple's motion is that Apple is at the same mindful of the
jurors' privacy and not at all afraid to discuss in public what needs to be
addressed because of Samsung's initiative. I continue to be very skeptical of
Samsung's chances of winning a new trial on the grounds of misconduct. It
wouldn't even be easy to hold a hearing at which the jurors have to testify.
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) allows only some very limited exceptions
under which jurors may serve as witnesses on what happened in the same
case. As Professor Brian Love noted on Twitter, even "[e]vidence jurors
heavily [and] used marijuana [and] cocaine at lunch breaks [is apparently] not
enough", pointing to the pretty astounding Tanner v. United States affair
(Wikipedia summary, full text of Supreme Court decision). If you're looking for

a story on a jury that really misbehaved in unbelievable ways, Tanner is an
example next to which anything Samsung appears to allege in Apple v.
Samsung pales in comparison, if there can be any comparison at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )