Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Apple

Jury In Apple v. Samsung Case May Have to Agree on 700 Points 111

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the vexing-jury-members-for-fun-and-profit dept.
puddingebola writes "Jurors in the Apple v. Samsung case will receive a 100 page 'instructions to the jury' document. They will also receive a multi-page form with numerous questions to come to a verdict. From the article: 'The document, which both sides have yet to agree on, is still in its draft stage. In Samsung's case, it's 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, it's 23 questions spread over nine pages.' Perhaps this is standard in patent trials? Perhaps road sobriety tests will soon include hopping on one foot while juggling?" As usual, Groklaw has the juicy details on the battle over writing the jury instructions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jury In Apple v. Samsung Case May Have to Agree on 700 Points

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @08:04AM (#41066455)

    Another interesting development [electronista.com] is that Judge Koh "unexpectedly reversed a lower magistrate's finding and decided to change the jury instructions with regards to the destruction of evidence from Samsung, changing the wording to imply that both Apple and Samsung should be presumed to have destroyed email evidence that could be relevant to the case." and "Despite the fact that there is no evidence that Apple has withheld any such emails, Koh's decision opts to give similar notices about both companies to the jury rather than instruct them on Samsung's deletions only. Koh could have also opted to not mention the evidence spoilation entirely, but chose instead to infer that Apple must also have deleted emails potentially favorable to Samsung's case. Had the previous instructions stood, it would have painted Samsung as more untrustworthy -- a key point in Apple's barrage of evidence."

    With Apple and Samsung CEOs holding last-minute talks [wired.com], it will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @08:13AM (#41066513)

    Apple kept automatic "Delete your emails to save space on the servers!" going and did not issue a formal litigation notice (which Apple had a greater right to expect as the one initiating the lawsuit). Apple got an adverse instruction against Samsung for that, when they themselves had failed to take steps to ensure preservation.

    Apple was quite honestly (in my opinion) full of shit. Steve Jobs not having a single relevant email to the litigation? Riiiiiiight.

    All moot in the end. The tactic got Apple and Samsung to agree to get the instructions against them removed (in exchange, they would agree to get the adverse instruction removed for the other party.

  • by cdrudge (68377) on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @08:43AM (#41066665) Homepage

    Not to mention that Sarbanes-Oxley requires I believe all emails to be retained for 7 years.

  • by ignavus (213578) on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @09:55AM (#41067489)

    Clerk of the court: Your Honour, the jury wuold like to ask a question.

    Judge: Very well, clerk of the court. What is the question?

    Clerk of the court: It is - and I quote - "Say what?"

  • by number6x (626555) on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @11:04AM (#41068249)

    Neither Apple or Samsung are accused of destroying evidence.

    Apple accused Samsung of not retaining email from the point in time when Apple requested the lower Court order that evidence be retained, and got the lower Court to issue the original warning. Samsung disputed Apple's opinon. Samsung showed that it did retain emails from the point in time when the Court issued the order to retain evidence, although not from the point in time that Apple made the request. Basically, Samsung's argument is that the Court, not Apple issues these kind of orders.

    It turns out that Apple itself did not retain emails until the Court finally ordered it, so they engaged in exactly the same behavior Samsung did. Apple did not start fully retaining

    Judge Koh decided that since Apple and Samsung engaged in the exact same behavior regarding saving of potential evidence, they should both get treated exactly the same in Court.

    Apple disagrees.

  • Re:Consider this. (Score:5, Informative)

    by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @11:25AM (#41068535)
    In many countries, employers are obliged to keep paying an employee full salary while they do jury duty, to prevent exactly the situation you describe. Sacking an employee on jury duty is a criminal offence.

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...