Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

groklaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#11

Post by ChuckMcM »

bhousel wrote: post #2

Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification? IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise. Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?

"Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification?"

No, jury nullification depends in a large part with the constitutional double indemnity clause. Basically if you are acquitted (found not guilty by a jury) you cannot be re-tried on that crime even if additional evidence comes up that points to you. So a jury 'nullifies' a law by acquitting you even if you were guilty, it prevents the law from punishing you for your acts.

If the jury gets it wrong and convicts you, then you can appeal for a new trial and try again.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#12

Post by at-fates-hands »

Not sure about patent cases, but in criminal law, attorneys have the opportunity to challenge jurors and have them removed.

If I Was a Samsung attorney, the people Grok just pointed out would be at the top of my list to have excused from the trial based on their previous litigation experience and bias.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#13

Post by cooldeal »

bhousel wrote: post #2

Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification? IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise. Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?

The "nullification" in jury nullification refer to the jury nullifying a law because it's unjust or unfair, not to the judge nullifying the jury for not following the rules.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#14

Post by cooldeal »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #12

Not sure about patent cases, but in criminal law, attorneys have the opportunity to challenge jurors and have them removed. If I Was a Samsung attorney, the people Grok just pointed out would be at the top of my list to have excused from the trial based on their previous litigation experience and bias.

Which they already did to a few jury candidates. Both sides only get a few chances to do that, they can't remove everyone they want to.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#15

Post by t314159 »

bhousel wrote: post #2

Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification? IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise. Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?

Look at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170

> Samsung was also treated unequally: Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to testify "we were ripped off" and "Samsung copied" (RT 509:11-510:22; 659:2-664:19; 1957:15-21; 1960:15-1963:1), while Samsung's witnesses were barred from explaining how Samsung's products differ from Apple's (RT 850-12-851:20; 2511:9-2515:5), or even how one Samsung product differs from another (RT 948:14-950:17). Samsung was required to lay foundation for any Apple document (RT 524:15-525:19; 527:3-12), while Apple was not (RT 1525:12-1526:7; 1406:11-1410:8; 1844:16-1845:8; 987:21-988:20; 2832:6-12). Apple was permitted to play advertisements (RT 641:6-642:16; 645:14-646:7), but Samsung was not (Dkt 1511). And Apple had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not. RT 1085:6-11; 1188:9-15; 1213:17-1220:5. In the interests of justice, Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and evenhanded treatment of the parties.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#17

Post by hesitz »

blacklooksgreat wrote: post #16

It's called Jury Nullification, kids. By the way, I think Hogan said he was able, not that he would.

Not sure, but I think jury nullification may apply only in criminal cases, essentially because of guarantee that defendant can't be tried more than once for same crime. With obvious misapplication of law by jury in a civil case I don't believe there's anything to prevent correction of the error.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#18

Post by lnanek2 »

twoodfin wrote: post #5

I don't get it. Why is it some kind of revelation that prospective jurors said they wouldn't let their previous experience with related issues influence their decision in the case? Isn't that bog standard voir dire stuff? ISTM that the legal system can't expect jurors to be blank slates on every issue, that's just impractical. A judgement would really be thrown out because a juror later commented that his foreman's e…

This article is a continuation of many the site has posted. In previous articles they have gone on in detail about how the foreman ignored jury instructions. He invalidated prior art because the code wouldn't run on the iPhone processor, for example, and he said they calculated damages to send a message to Samsung and the industry as a whole. These things are both directly counter to the jury instructions, which do not require prior art to be binary compatible and state damages should only basically fix the amount of money lost by the other company, not be extreme to make a point. Here's one of the articles: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120828225612...

If the guy had that previous experience, but he followed the instructions, I don't think people would have complained. But instead he ignored instructions and took things into his own hands based on his incorrect perceptions of patent law he formed from his past experiences.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#19

Post by sbuk »

Does this really change anything? Do you not think that a reasonable jury would come to similar conclusions? I'd call this clutching at straws TBH. I'm not convinced that all of Apple's claims hold water at all, but some do have merit, however ridiculous anyone seems to think design patents are. Painting Samsung as an innocent party and blindly ignoring what is in front of your eyes is wilful to say the least. Add Samsung's rather dubious attempts to extract unreasonable terms on FRAND licenses which it seems had already been licensed, it's hard to see them winning a re-trial. If they do, this whole affair would give reasonable grounds for Apple to appeal any decision anyway. Groklaw seems to be playing to peanut gallery here; there is little objectivity and way too much partisanship to consider any of the articles published there sound, or anywhere else for that matter, but a paralegal has no excuse IMHO.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#20

Post by ars »

hesitz wrote: post #17
blacklooksgreat wrote: post #16

It's called Jury Nullification, kids. By the way, I think Hogan said he was able, not that he would.

Not sure, but I think jury nullification may apply only in criminal cases, essentially because of guarantee that defendant can't be tried more than once for same crime. With obvious misapplication of law by jury in a civil case I don't believe there's anything to prevent correction of the error.

No, it applies in civil cases, but the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict (so it's not as powerful).
Post reply on HN