Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#21

Post by danielweber » Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 8:35 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #20

hesitz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict

That's not jury nullification.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#22

Post by taligent » Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 8:42 PM UTC

t314159 wrote: post #15

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 Samsun…

Samsung was barred from explaining how the F700 was different from the iPhone because they didn't submit the request in time. It is as simple as that.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#23

Post by twoodfin » Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 8:46 PM UTC

lnanek2 wrote: post #18

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 n…

I don't want to re-litigate all this, but her argument puts an awful lot of weight on 15 seconds of the foreman speaking extemporaneously during a TV interview. I don't think it's outrageous to believe that when he said "processor" he was referring to the two devices broadly, and that he reads the '381 patent as applying to a different kind of system than the DiamondTouch. Even she specifies that the Apple patent covered "portable multifunction devices", which the DiamondTouch manifestly is not.

Again, I'm not arguing that the prior art is or isn't sufficient to throw out the patent. I'm only arguing that it's not a slam dunk that this juror "took things into his own hands" based on a few vague comments about their deliberations.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#24

Post by potatolicious » Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 9:04 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #23

lnanek2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

I don't want to re-litigate all this, but her argument puts an awful lot of weight on 15 seconds of the foreman speaking extemporaneously during a TV interview. I don't think it's outrageous to believe that when he said "processor" he was referring to the two devices broadly, and that he reads the '381 patent as applying to a different kind of system than the DiamondTouch. Even she specifies that the Apple patent cov…

I don't think anyone here is ready to tar and feather the jury foreman here - but the fact that the interviews were given, and based on interviews with other jurors, it certainly seems suspicious.

And considering $1bn is on the line, I don't think it's too much to ask that we investigate this.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises

#25

Post by scott_w » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 7:29 AM UTC

sbuk wrote: post #19

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 Sa…

I'm not sure it is wishful thinking. Pam does point out that the chances of this changing the outcome are slim.