|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
Please place your corrections in the title if possible.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT |
If we move up the list will more people participate? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
News picks and banter here please. Include links where appropriate. Thank you
very much.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Declare a license or risk losing participation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:16 AM EDT
- Samsung Galaxy S3 sales hot despite iPhone 5 - Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT
- P&G, Walmart, Coke And 30 Other Huge Advertisers Just Humiliated Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT
- P&G, Walmart, Coke And 30 Other Huge Advertisers Just Humiliated Microsoft - Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- So why dont i get windows free then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- P&G, Walmart, Coke And 30 Other Huge Advertisers Just Humiliated Microsoft - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- P&G, Walmart, Coke &c. just display their ignorance - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
- P&G, Walmart, Over reaction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- P&G, Walmart, Over reaction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- DNT Logic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- The Apache viewpoint on this - MS is not being the good guy - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- News Picks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Oracle files appeal in android IP case - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 03:01 AM EDT
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
Keep off the Topic. Topical posters will be down-modded. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- shades of stats - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:34 AM EDT
- How Are Those Warheads? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- Well played Ofcom well played :-) 4G timetable agreed by UK mobile network operators - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:05 AM EDT
- No Virginia, you have no duty to secure your wifi access point - Authored by: Ribbit on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:11 AM EDT
- Samsung Galaxy S III Sales Helped by iPhone 5, Patent Trial - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT
- Off-topic Posts - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- MS to release own WP8 handset... - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- Syrup Smugglers Sin Bin Busted - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- Trial by Congress: The French impotence courts of the 16th and 17th centuries - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Strong words from the Federal Reserve on patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- FTC [claims to] Halts Massive Tech Support Scams - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- Bogometer models - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:59 PM EDT
- New Kindle creating Apple-like frenzy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:40 AM EDT
- Google Finally Changes ContentID Appeals Process - Authored by: artp on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- OT: If "required" implies automatic licensure - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Apple Apology Gives iOS 6 Users a Chance to Find a Better Map App - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
FAQ #1. Note to newbies, see above for how to properly make a First Post. Once
having achieved all four of the above posts in any order, then you may claim a
next post as "First Post".
Please be creative. First Posts posts are so old hat they can induce nausea,
unless dressed up in creative ways.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FAQ #2 - Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
This is a great article. Samsung seems to have a slam-dunk with this appeal. And
shame on Apple for even thinking about objecting to this. They should in all
fairness be siding with Samsung on this issue, and any company that can stand by
and let this atrocity of the US Legal system stand is not worthy of my least
penny or respect. I've never been a fan of Apple products, but always had
respect for the company and their vision.
They are dead to me now. (Yes, I'm a Pat Morita fan and saw his movies. Yes, I
know he didn't say that paraphrased line either; so don't correct me by saying
he never said something like that.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: calris74 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
To me, most of all, it answers Samsung's eagerness to get the
Galaxy Tab ban overturned. This argument makes the case for a
new trial so compelling as to be almost certain in Samsung's
eyes. So getting the ban overturned and then scheduling a new
trial (possibly months or years away) is a very nice move
indeed :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: calris74 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:40 AM EDT |
Of course this is all just irrelevant over-reaction on
Samsung's part and has no factual, legal or logical basis for
the judge to agree to any of it[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
A new trial is quite impractical. The first trial set indelibly inconsistent
precedents. Apple will have to wait more years for any more injunctive relief,
after the first fiasco. They might lose everything eventually.
What is the judge to do? What is Apple to do?
Samsung holds the cards now that Apple's hand has been depleted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
just askin' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
Irony goes here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: HenchmenResource on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
Here is a article where Velvin Hogan Responds to questions about
misconduct in voir dire
In the article he says that he was only
asked about
cases/litigation he was involved in the last 10 years,
reading the
except that was posted when this was first filed
I don't see a time limit
qualifier used. I sadly don't have
the time to read the court filings in their
entirety so
maybe I missed something. Could someone clarify if there was
a
qualifier that I missed, or is Mr. Hogan lying or maybe
just senile? I'd hate
to say he was coached since that would
be jumping to conclusions that I have no
evidence of so I am
hoping someone who has read the court documents in their
entirety could shed some light on this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
Samsung is accusing Hogan of the voir dire failure but it also says
that the jury "improperly considered extraneous evidence during deliberations"
-- which is about Hogan's Aha moment and that he misstated the law about prior
art.
I have to question this in one way. It seems as if you are
saying that he "invented" the aha momemt to try to sway the jury to his way of
thinking (in order to get back at Seagate/Samsung).
If this were really
true, and not a "true" aha moment why would he have been proclaiming it all over
the media? Would it not have been better played just to keep his mouth shut?
If he had done that, most of this would have most likely been left to the tin
foil hat people to talk about. Please note that I am not defending him, nor
do I think this verdict should stand, but it just seems strange. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:05 AM EDT |
.
Velvin's Revenge. He "redacts' his answers during
Voir dire hiding the fact that a party sued him
causing him to hire attorneys and then go bankrupt.
He has just cost Apple a billion unless Apple can
show that Samsung knew and sat on the information.
The Apple lawyers are ticked because their verdict is
mush. It might have slid by if Velvin was one of the
sheep. But he was the patent-owning foreman who
dismissed all prior art in favor of Apple and then
didn't find for one Samsung patent. He then told the
world about it corroborated by at least one other
juror. Once something
is on the record she will dispatch Velvin's verdict
like she did the preliminary injunction. Both
parties with unlimited staff and cunsultants made a
strategic decision to leave these patent guys on the
jury. Like with all juries it is risky business.
How can one justify a PI with any jury?
-webster-
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:18 AM EDT |
I remember a long time ago an episode of Quincy where a man killed another man
in a DUI. The man was seen drinking just before the accident and just after. In
the end Quicy proved the guy was not drunk ( he had a hematoma from the
accident, a hospital drained it and saved the blood which would have been blood
from the time of the accident, that blood had virtually no alcohol in it ). It
turned out that the penalty for killing a guy by DUI was so much slower then for
example murder.
It sounds like this guy really planned to be on the jury, and may be using the
"I'm an idiot" pose because he knows that it is hard to set aside a
verdict, and to get Samsung to waste their energy in that direction.
I'm relieved because I think it is hard for Judge Koh, and for the CAFC to
ignore this, but this is also dissapointing to me.
This experience caused me to learn how much juror misconduct we are willing to
put up with. Had the picture been as Hogan wanted us to think it was, there
would have been a lot of pressure on the courts to seriously look at the issue.
Especially with a trade war hanging in the balance ( remember Samsung is a
foreign company ).
Frankly it bothers me to hear that it's OK to have drunk jurors, or any other
kind of misbehaving jurors, and I think that this case would have highlighted
the issue.
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:44 AM EDT |
During voir dire he said only held one patent but some reporter dug up that he
actually held two patents, one he obtained himself, and another he bought from
someone. He also failed to mention that both had lapsed through his inaction.
I think someone posted another case he was involved in.
Could this guy be a sort of shady character in and out of legal trouble? If
Samsung looks could it be possible they find other lawsuits? Should they look?
Mouse The Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:46 AM EDT |
This really could result in a retrial :-)
Wow.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:18 AM EDT |
Roe Conn is a talk show host. All though on occasion he does politics he is not
in the Rush Limbaugh/Rachael Maddow mold of talk show hosts, nostly dealing with
recent movies/tv show episodes/music/Liday Lohan etc. He gained a modicum of
national fame for his daily one hour summary of the OJ trial which was
rebroadcast nationwide.
During the George Ryan ( ex Illinois governor ) trial he received a call from a
guy claiming to have spoken aqbout the case with one of the jurors. It actually
caused a brouhaha in the court room.
I thought of this when you mentioned replying to legal stories.
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT |
I think the way FRAND has been interpreted so far in MS vs Motorola is more
practical than what you're suggesting. The case is proving that FRAND is
unworkable (promises to negotiate always are!) and needs to be replaced with a
standing offer or something (eg a promise to not refuse to sell licenses at
$0.50/device or whatever), but the courts are still stuck trying interpret the
current mess.
If a license *isn't* more or less automatically in place what's stopping a
patent holder simply stalling/refusing to negotiate while pressing infringement
claims? That's pretty obviously not consistent with the intent behind FRAND
clauses.
The other issue that keeps coming up is suggesting that only the end result is
required to be FRAND, not the negotiations. But if neither party is under any
obligation to be reasonable in negotiations, how can the result be expected to
be reasonable?
I think a workable interpretation has to require both sides negotiations/offers
to be at least somewhat reasonable - not just the end result - and there does
need to be an license in place from when negotiations start that only gets
revoked whenever a "reasonable" by the patent holder is rejected...
whatever that is. Of course even deciding what's reasonable or not is
incredibly subjective - stuff has to be absolutely off the planet to be clearly
untenable.
I somewhat agree with Motorola that damages shouldn't be limited to FRAND rates
because that creates an incentive to infringe first then negotiate later if you
get called out, but so much patent infringement is accidental/ridiculous that
I'm not sure how workable that is.
I'm pretty sure I'm glad it's not my job to sort it all out though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
Unbelievable. I needed a really good laugh. That is certainly going to set the
cat among the pigeons.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
PJ writes...
If Hogan was on a mission to get back at
Seagate, obviously that could tie in to why he felt so
urgent about coming up
with an aha moment, after the first
day's deliberations when he felt, or so he
told the media,
that the jury was going to go Samsung's way. I think you can
see how these two issues could indeed be related to the
verdict. I don't know
if they are or not; nor do I know if
the judge will find it so. But I know
she ought to have a
hearing to get to the bottom of it. My question, I
confess, is will answers to questions be truthful?
I
just don't think there will ever be any hearing with
the jury or Hogan, and I
don't think the "Hogan on a mission
to get back at Seagate" will get any
traction (it doesn't
with me). Instead, I
expect the judge will find among
Samsung's cards an ace with
which to void the verdict, without having to
speculate on
Hogan's motives. Specifically, Hogan's lack of full
disclosure
during voir dire and his self-reported
teachings to fellow jurors of "incorrect
and extraneous
legal standards"...
In post-verdict
interviews with the media,
Mr. Hogan said that he told his fellow jurors an
accused
device infringes a design patent based on “look and feel”,
that an
accused device infringes a utility patent unless it
is “entirely different”,
that a prior art reference could
not be invalidating unless that reference was
“interchangeable”, and that invalidating prior art must be
currently in
use. These incorrect and extraneous legal
standards had no place in the jury
room.
For all these reasons, Mr. Hogan’s conduct during voir dire
and
jury deliberations must be fully examined in a hearing
with all jurors and can
be cured only by a grant of new
trial. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
It is clear that Mr. Hogan was not truthful in answering
questions during voir dire. This is part of the court proceedings and I am sure
he was sworn in as all prospective
jurors were.
Could Mr. Hogan now face charges for his actions? This wasnt
just a a little lie but it looks like a plot for revenge.
Surly some district attorney will be looking at this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:07 AM EDT |
So 19 years ago, a lawyer sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate/Samsung. Then,
after the Samsung/Apple trial ended and Mr. Hogan's comments start making the
papers/internet, this lawyer says to their spouse, "You know, I remember
this guy from a lawsuit 19 years ago."
How unusual is it for an attorney to remember the name of someone on the
opposite side of a lawsuit 19 years earlier?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
Hogan was asked if he was EVER involved in
A lawsuit ...
he explained that he was once involved in A
lawsuit
Was he ever asked if that was the ONLY lawsuit
he was involved in?
Technically, I don't see a lie otherwise.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT |
In reading the Exhibit A part of ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf I am
reminded of this old saw:
Because it presents the facts in the wrong
chronological order.
Why is top-posting a bad idea?
--- (c)
assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
In reading the Exhibit A part of ApplevSamsung-1991E
x1.pdf I am reminded of this old saw:
Because it presents the facts
in the wrong chronological order.
Why is top-posting a bad
idea?
--- (c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
So, why did Samsung redacted the part about juror misconduct?
Don't they want this information public as it seems to help
their case a lot?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
I am surprised that lawyers for both sides didn't do a simple
public record search of all potentential jurors. Why is this
not routine even in expensive court cases?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
Apple's defense on this is pretty obvious. They'll argue it's untimely. And
they might prevail on that piece.
There's a reasonable argument here that Samsung's "my wife just
remembered!" argument is as suspicious as the "aha!" moment in
terms of
suspicious fortuitous coincidence. I suspect they'll argue Samsung knew
this all along (or should have if they did their homework). And that, rather
than bring this up earlier, they kept it in their back pocket as a "heads I
win,
tails I use this to get another flip." Even if not, a post-trial discovery
of
something they could have found earlier (I'm sure they'll argue) isn't
compelling. I didn't do my homework isn't grounds for a new trial.
Apple has a lot harder time (and will probably dance around) the whole
"juror deliberately ignored the judge's instructions and induced others to
do
the same" argument. Which given his statements to the press seem hard
to refute, and don't suffer any timeliness issues (Samsung couldn't have
known per-verdict what the jury would do in the jury room)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
Does anyone else find it strange that Hogan also parsed his employment history
very interestingly.
He said he was hired in the 80's (the note is dated July 1989).
And "laid off" in the 90's (it was July 1991 according to complaint).
Two years seems a pretty short time. His statements implied he was there for
much longer.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
The jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, failed to answer truthfully during
voir dire. Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very
close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a
defendant, or as a witness?” (Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 148:18-21), he
disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others
I
don't get this. If the question is "have you been in a lawsuit", the correct
answer is "yes" (with actually naming one being purely optional). It sounds
like he was being truthful.
If he was asked to name all the lawsuits, or if he
named one lawsuit and was then asked "were there any others?", then yeah, he was
being untruthful, but the above doesn't claim he was asked any of these things.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
"Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan
failed to mention in voir dire, the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that
Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I'll show you. You wouldn't believe it if it was
in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in
1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for
Samsung."
If Samsung' lawyers knew Hogan was lying or failed to mention the suit, why
didn't they bring it up earlier?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
The degree to which post-trial interview answers conform with biographical
facts, or interpretations of past trial outcomes is irrelevant. Seems to
me that Hogan's deliberation room leadership on the issue of prior art was him
interpreting the law and not bringing in evidence from beyond the trial or
performing outside investigations. Now, I am troubled by this short-cut
that
the jury made, but, on the other hand, it was a short-cut that the other
seven
were quite eager to make. Hogan's post-trial comments describing how
the jurors
agreed,
independently, at the beginning of the trial that Samsung copied Apple
and
wanted to make Samsung pay is not, on its face, indicative of a pre-trial
bias and
any assertion that it does overlooks that the other seven jurors did
not have a
history of Samsung litigation. Going back to the issue of
prior art, if
the foreman misled the jury as to the law, then this is addressed
via the JMOL
motions,
where both parties recap and prioritize the evidence and
cite law and on-point
cases. That this jury ignored instructions and relied on
someone other than the
Judge to explain the law clearly shows that the jury was
not reasonable. The next
step, and it's not a trivial one, is for a party to
convince the Judge that a
reasonable jury would rule differently. I wrote
a few weeks
back that I think counsel makes a poor strategic litigation choice
when it uses its
trial resources to convince the jury to override the patent
office. I think the jury
will focus on what does the patent say and what how
does the technology work.
Incidentally, an assertion that a juror is a strong
believer in the patent system is
not an indicator of bias. In general, that is
an assertion that they believe in the
law. In particular, as Samsung was
cross-suing Apple over patents Samsung
owns, its a bias that cuts both
ways. We all have our biases. Mine is that
I've been using Macs since
1984 and have a high regard for how innovative
design differentiates their
products. I also have been affiliated with architectural
interior design where
world-class designers create furniture for top
manufacturers and successful
products are knocked off. On the other hand,
when the designers I worked with
saw a good solution, they incorporated the
essence of the design into their
work. (Stealing in the Picasso sense: using the
past as a guide to the novel
future.) Here's what I think will happen. The Judge
will first deal with the
JMOL motions and generally rule to the benefit of Samsung
and the award will be
reduced. That will in essence render the question of jury
misconduct moot
because the court arrived at the correct result. The more
Samsung wins, the
more moot the issue. I don't see Judge Koh giving the parties
a redo. The
Appeals Court ordering a retrial? Possible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
Lets hope nobody tells him about it. It could help him in trying to find a
convincing story.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
And finally, the now-unredacted Exhibit 18 [PDF] to the Pierce
Declaration is a letter from Apple to Samsung back in May, claiming that it was
already licensed to Samsung's FRAND patents, even though they hadn't yet agreed
to a price and hadn't paid anything at all.
I think the idea
that the courts are using here is that the FRAND terms require the patent-holder
to negotiate a license. It may require the courts to step in and lay down the
law on what's fair and reasonable terms, but the patent-holder's already
committed to accepting at last some terms. The question wouldn't be whether
terms are come to, but only the amount of money involved. So the courts are
taking the position that they'll deem some license to have been in place
from the beginning, the only question needing to be addressed yet is how big the
payment will be and that can always be handled after-the-fact.
We've seen
similar logic before, where the courts won't allow an injunction or some
sanctions because the only thing at stake is money and that can always be
addressed by a judgement and award of that money. To get your relief you have to
show damages beyond merely money, or alternatively that the law explicitly says
you're entitled to that relief regardless. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patent license - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:49 AM EDT
- Patent license - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT
- Patent license - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Patent license - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- Patent license - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:16 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
The actionable issue is not being truthful in voir dire. That can get Samsung a
new trial.
The part about Hogan being in other suits brings plausible motive for Hogan's
lies, which strengthens the reasoning for a new trial. It is not really
necessary nor important to the point of lying during VD.
Unfortunately, Apple can only oppose this motion around the edges. That is the
only straw Apple has, and it is very short. Somehow, Apple needs to get the
Judge to ignore the lies during VD. They are doing the best they know how with
what they have. And they are very good lawyers, indeed.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
"even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the
prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a
witness or a party"
"you can see for yourself in the transcript"
Did you actually read the transcript? The court asked,"THE NEXT QUESTION
IS, HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER
BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT..." Hogane replied "In 2008, after my
company went belly up,..."
I want samsung to have a strong case against Apple but the court never asked to
list all cases they just said "have you ever."
Some people are saying that Hogan had replied to the question by saying
"Once, in 2008,..." But the transcript specifically shows that he
never said "once". IMO its going to be really hard to show that Hogan
didnt answer the full truth when the question was designed only asking for one
instance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
I'm trying to wrap my head around all the money spent on this trial from all
sides and it seems it may all go to waste because of one juror's ego. Its
really amazing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
...was a premeditated psychological ploy on the behalf of Hogan. Strong words,
but let me explain.
The jury was overwhelmed with facts with reams of legal
documents which they had no comprehension of. The amount of work they would have
to do was formidable even for one skilled in the art of the legal system. Each
juror would have been asking themselves why they were incapable of having and
informed opinion so that they could escape the drudgery set before them.
Hogan of course, with his fictitious 'Aha Moment' displays what appears to
be enlightenment, and in essence some presumed 'intellect' as to how to proceed,
right when everyone else has no clue where to even start. If they were to simply
agree with Hogan then they get a free pass, out from under all the work they see
before them. To disagree one must first have an understanding of the facts in
order to refute Hogans position. To disagree with Hogan also is to admit one
does not understand, and if you do not understand certainly no one will follow.
Hogan played the game well, and his little psychological ploy allowed him to
steer the jury in any direction he wanted.
--- The Investors IP Law:
The future health of a Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of
IP lawsuits they are currently litigating. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
Has anyone been able to locate any information on Hogan's 2008 case?
I know it settled so the record could be very thin. It would be interesting to
compare his description to the filings.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
Is it just me or does that sound contrived? I'm willing to
sell anyone a bridge in New York City![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
In 2009 and there were three hard drive manufacturers-- Seagate, Samsung and
Western Digital. Thanks to this pseudo merger there are two now: Seagate and
WD.
Hogan might claim, ( He hasn't AFAIK, but some iTrolls have made the claim. )
that he did not know about the pseudomerger between Samsung and Seagate, but
then he would have known that they were competitors.
Wasn't he asked about being employed by competitors during voir dire? IS so
shouldn't he have said Seagate?
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpammersAreScum on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
Even assuming there was any 10-year window, and apparently there was not,
how could anyone think 1993 falls "well outside" of it? No wonder they botched
the award math so badly. ---
Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
I would call this Hogan's Reality distortion field (HRDF).... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Someone asked "Since when is 1993 "well outside" a 10-year
window?"
Umm ... since 2012 - 1993 is approximately ...
(takes off shoes ... counts on toes)
19 ... yes 19 years.
Yup .. well outside 10.
(Not that there really is a 10 year range limit)
(Note: not posting directly to their post so they
may yet have a chance to delete their post)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
Per Herr Mueller: 'FOSS Patents won't cover the jury misconduct debate'
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
Is there a potential penalty for Juror misconduct especially if it is judged
willful?
Juries should be free from fear of negative consequences from decisions they
make but the potential costs and consequences from misconduct are massive. In
this case the direct financial costs of a new trial alone will be huge let alone
potential indirect costs and consequences.
It may seem vindictive but to me the juror should be charged with perjury or
attempting to pevert the course of justice if the actions are judged
deliberate.In the UK this has a maximum sentence of life inprisonment. There
must be some consequence for attempting to damage an individual or company in
such a significant way. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
Koh: UM-HMM
Hogan: BUT LIKE I SAID, WE SETTLED THAT -- BECAUSE OF
DOCUMENTATION I HAD, WE WERE ABLE TO SETTLE IT OUT OF COURT
AND THEN WE WENT BACK TO COURT ONE LAST TIME FOR THE
DISMISSAL PAPERWORK.
KOH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
<< Right here she drops the ball. These words sound like a
dismissal. It would have been so much better had she then
said, "Any others?"
<< But she goes on to the next juror:
MR R..., I THINK YOU RAISED YOUR CARD?
So Hogan, in spite of his improper conduct, may get a free
pass.
Even so, the result was clearly excessively prejudicial to
Samsung and Hogan violated his oath to tell the whole truth.
Fortunately, he seems bent on destroying his credibility by
fabricating statements.
Apparently he is not as bright as the three or four
anonymous posters who would absolve Hogan of lying because
of this unfortunate exchange.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
I have to admit, I am now a bit amused by this farce. Readers who do contract
design work surely recognize ole Velvin... There is always one of him in the
engineering department screwing up the project with bizarre engineering theories
and out of spec unimplementable design ideas. Velvin just happens to work on a
grander scale than most.
Anyway, don't be too hard on Velvin. I do not personally believe that there was
any malice on his part and that he sincerely believes that he did his best to
deliver to us ungrateful mere mortals a flash of divinely inspired lucidity on
patent and copyright law. Velvin is... well just Velvin, that's the way he is
wired.
I am a bit puzzled though, given the stakes involved and the resources available
today, he wasn't quietly vetted better as the trial went on. Then again, maybe
he was and that is the cat and mouse game being played now between Apple and
Samsung. After all, he could be either side's ace in the hole if the trial went
against them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: calris74 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
I think that Hogan has decided that the judge's question
carried an implied exclusion based on some kind of 'Limit of
Liabilities' (maybe the term of his individual bankruptcy?)
So when the judge said 'ever' he heard 'within the time frame
of statue of limitations'...
So, more of Hogan bringing in his own personal views of law
into the court rather than leaving it all at the door on the
way in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
"The attorney who sued Mr. Hogan on Seagate’s behalf is the
husband of a Quinn Emanuel partner." (See Declaration of
Susan R. Estrich,
paragraph 3: "Diane M. Doolittle, a
partner in the Silicon Valley office of
Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, is married to Michael F. Grady,
the attorney who filed the complaint, Exhibit A, against
Velvin Hogan on
behalf of Seagate.")
So that is how they found out. But the operative
question
is, when?
This is jumping to
conclusions.
It is entirely possible that the spouse does not have the
slightest recollection of a (for him) minor case 19 years
ago.
Instead it is plausible that Samsung put detectives on Hogan
as
soon they found something was fishy. It will be trivial
for a detective to dig
up the reference by following leads
from the public records. There are even
programs that will
do such things.
Heck, it is possible someone found
the court case, then
entered the lawyers into LinkedIn and found out he was
connected by the spouse of a co-worker.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
the law as the Judge instructed ... and not the law as he
remembered this assumed 10 year statue of limitations
regarding any past history. Quite arrogant on his part to
second guess the Court. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
I used think hard before I wrote comments about Mr. Hogan. I
worried that I might be saying something unfair about him. I
didn't want to say anything that wasn't based on fact, or at
least a rational deduction from fact.
After reading this, it seems that I didn't have to worry.
Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. The truth is coming
out, and Mr. Hogan is still giving interviews dispensing his
brand of fiction.
Could anybody in their wildest dreams have come up with a
plot for a book like this? It would have been rejected
faster than you could say "Jack Sprat". The characters would
just be too unbelievable.
But it is becoming all too clear that Hogan went into this
with an agenda. The circumstances just scream bias.
He has hidden information from the voir dire process. Let
all the anon posters suggest that he is innocent in this -
it doesn't matter. [I would be surprised if there weren't at
least a few Apple astro-turfers or fanbois in the recent
influx of Hogan-defenders.] In the end, it only matters what
the judge decides. But if I were a betting man, I would
stick with the blog that called it - Groklaw.
His story is not consistent. He is starting to contradict
himself in small ways. He is rewriting history. And he is
misquoting the judge's instructions - a judge who has
already shown major irritation with both sides. I would not
get on the wrong side of Judge Koh if I were Mr. Hogan.
Not being truthful in voir dire.
Hiding an association with a Samsung competitor/partner.
Ignoring the judge's instructions on changing laws.
Ignoring the judge's instructions on bringing in outside
evidence.
Going outside the scope of the jury instructions to send a
message to the industry on IP rights.
And his character flaws are becoming glaringly obvious. I
almost feel sorry for him. But if he didn't want to be
picked over this way, he should have kept quiet. Yet he
still comments in public, and appears to seek the publicity.
These are not the actions of a man without an agenda. They
are the actions of a man with some serious problems.
The judge will sort out some of those problems. The rest
are up to Mr. Hogan.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT |
oh i beleive the guy lied and probably had intent to screw over the
company but prove it.
I think you are confusing a legal
proceeding with a mathematical exercise. It's the judge that will have to rule
on this, and she is perfectly capable of using common sense and the law, rather
than mathematical or gramatical rigor, to reach a conclusion
when you
ask some half ass question like this lawyer did then you
screwed up. as a lawyer
you should be covering all of your bases in a question
to where there are no
loop holes to get out and this lawyer left a big one bc
hogan could easily argue
that he answered the question in what he believed was
an appropriate answer. not
to mention that the lawyer didnt follow up to ask if
there were any other
instances which points more in favor of hogan thinking he
answered all of what
was asked by the question.
so insult however you like, but do yourself a favor,
if you ever practice law,
and understand that the design of your question means
everything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
This reads more like a bad television legal drama than real life.
It will however be interesting to follow, and it is a real learning experience.
It
is also turning into an incredible mess, that is not going to be to the
advantage of either party (both companies are going to be mired in
litigation for even longer).
The major question now is will Samsung get a new trial? I think that they
should get a new trial, but will they?
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, after an initially
supportive response to Microsoft’s announcement, released a statement expressing
his belief that the right standard is a default of “off” for “do-not-track,”
recognizing the harm to consumers that Microsoft’s decision could
create.
(my emphasis)
Hmmm. Not being tracked and
subsequently targeted by predatory advertisers could harm the
consumer.
That must be a slip. Surely they meant harm to the
advertisers... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ups - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
- Ups - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- Ups - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Disagree completely - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
There are some great free resources out there that provide a
good overview and references for Juror Misconduct cases.
http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_misconduct_kinds.asp
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-jury-misconduct/
Skewed towards looking at Connecticut but still a good
discussion:
http://www.gallagher-lawfirm.com/articles/jurymisconduct.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
This chap (not VH) was smart (not the smartEST - certainly above average) but
everything he said had a little bit either added or missing or sublty inaccurate
- so as to give him an advantage.
Dealing with him and dealing with the people he managed to pursuade was absolute
murder because he came across as so plausible.
He would have gotten away with a lot more had it not been for his ego. The size
of a house, he didn't know when to keep quiet. He ended up talking himself into
a courtroom.
I worry about VH. Ive said on here and I'll say it again.
I really hope this cat knows what he's doing because there are a lot of folks
who are now *really* motivated to examine everything he utters.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nola on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
Samsung claims that there was jury misconduct. Allowing that as true for the
sake of discussion, is that Apple's problem? Did Apple have any hand in
selecting this or any other juror?
The answer is clearly "No". Samsung, Apple and the Court did juror
selection based upon what they knew at the time selection was done.
Remembering that this was a civil trial, rather than a criminal one
requiring a unanimous decision from the jury, it might be possible
to re-evaluate the jury decision reducing the number of jurors by
one - Hogan. This is dangerous though because he was the
foreman and seem clearly to have had a major influence over the other jurors
(never a good idea).
So maybe we're looking at a new trial. Well -- both Apple and Samsung
presented significant evidence during the previous trial. If it come to pass,
they will do so again. And I expect that Apple will probably do better in the
do-over.
From a financial standpoint, Samsung would probably do better to argue
down damages. If it insists upon a new trial and loses then triple damages are
are a certainty.
So, ladies and gentlemen, take your dice in hand and prepare to roll ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- meh - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- doubtful - Authored by: janolder on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- meh - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- meh - Authored by: nola on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT
- meh - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
|
Authored by: janolder on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
As a European who spent 15 years in the States it is blatantly obvious
to me
that US
juries don't and can't work properly for certain types of cases. Sure,
a
jury
can
probably fairly reliably look in the eye of an alleged juvenile
thief
and make
the
right decision - even though the shockingly high number of
released
death row
inmates
makes me question even that. But make the right
decision in a case like
this? I
don't
think so. Even the Oracle v Google
verdict was marred by the jury being
quite
confused by nine lines of code
(really four lines with the rest blank or
consisting
of a curly brace).
I
can't speak for other European countries, however in Germany the
system is
quite
simple: Judges decide cases, there is no jury. Often it is a single
judge, but
in
complex or important cases there is a panel of judges. Courts
are also
quite
specialized, unlike in the US. Very rarely do I read about
questionable
decisions
from the courts here and never about something as
grossly wrong as this.
Folks with decent memories will remember SCO's brief
tussle with German
courts.
It
took three weeks and a few hundred Euros for a
German judge to dismiss
SCO's
case for
lack of evidence. In the US? Seven
years and 100 million dollars.
Folks with amazing memories will remember the
trial of the assailant of
Monica
Seles.
No doubt the outcome of the trial
(two years probation due to severe
mental
impairment; upheld on appeal) was
unsatisfying, but by German standards
it was
not a
miscarriage of justice.
Germany does not take revenge on the insane, but
a jury
might
well have in
contravention of the law. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 04:42 AM EDT |
Hogan says:
“I answered every question the judge asked me”
and that may (or may not) be true, but notice that he DIDN'T say
"I answered, with honesty, every question the judge asked me."
Notice
also that he attempts to justify his dishonesty by trying to shift the attention
to Samsung:
and Samsung “had every opportunity to question me,”
Hogan said. He added that he’s surprised Samsung didn’t know about the history
it’s now citing given the relationship the lawyer Samsung refers to in its
filing has with another lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the
firm representing the company. Hogan said yesterday’s filing has him wondering
whether Samsung “let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it
didn’t go in their favor.”
So. I'm just trying to understand
here. Whether Samsung knew about it or not, what does that have to do with him
lying to a judge?
He's obviously not saying that Samsung paid him to
lie to the judge, but he sure seems to act as if Samsung is somehow (magically,
I guess) responsible for his own, personal choices.
Is this guy like 3
years old or something? Why aren't people put in jail for this
foolishness?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
Here's an example of how nice poor little downtrodden
Samsung is :
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php%3fpage=news_item&px=MTIwMDU
https://lists.tizen.org/pipermail/general/2012-
October/001074.html
Sound like totally arrogant sew and sews to me...
I say good on Apple for finally smacking them down for
slavishly copying the iPhone
I am unable to create an account due to it being disabled by
the web master of this site.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|