Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android The Courts Apple

Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation 208

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the couldn't-keep-quiet dept.
sfcrazy writes "Samsung is clearly accusing Hogan in its recent filing of influencing the jury in favor of Apple. Samsung said in its filing: 'Mr. Hogan's own statements to the media suffice if such a showing is required. Once inside the jury room, Mr. Hogan acted as a "de facto technical expert" who touted his high-tech experience to bring the divided jury together. Contrary to this Court's instructions, he told other jurors incorrectly 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. He thus failed "to listen to the evidence, not to consider extrinsic facts, [and] to follow the judge's instructions."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:24AM (#41980375)
    If the appeal is successful and the case has to go to trial again then you can bet all the apple fanbois will start to declare that hogan was a samsung plant and that this was their plan all along...
  • Vermin Hogan? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:44AM (#41980461)

    Some of the statements he made after the trial, he seemed to be enjoying the limelight until he realised what a hole he was digging and seemed to shut up. I was mind-blown.

    He actually seemed proud, of the fact that he was able to convince the other jurors that they could ignore the "prior art" arguments because they were "bogging us down".

    He stated very matter of factly, that the trial was over from day one when Apple presented their "smoking gun" which, in fact, turned out to be quite the opposite to anybody who actually READS the thing now that the unredacted documents are available, and didn't just look at Apple's cherry-picking and assumption leaping.

    He ignored the judge's instructions as to how to calculate the award amount (and seemed quite proud of the 'punishment' he awarded (paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to look it up): "I approached it by thinking, what if these were MY patents", and "so we made an appropriately painful award").

    The award amount itself was sent back to the jury room how many times, because they couldn't do simple arithmetic (and such was their hurry to get out of there, they awarded a few tens of millions even for things they said DIDN'T infringe).

    The whole trial was a farce... Declaring mistrials is very uncommon but this travesty needs to be one of the exceptions.

  • Very curiously... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jkrise (535370) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:45AM (#41980465) Journal

    it was Apple which probed Samsung's timing of their knowledge about Hogan's past.... a question which they themselves failed to answer when Samsung's lawyers filed a rebuttal. Very strange... looks like Apple could get hoisted by their own petard... and rightfully so!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:48AM (#41980497)

    When there's a billion dollar verdict riding on making him appear like a scumbag, don't be surprised if they try to paint him in as negative of a light as possible.

  • by PortHaven (242123) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:53AM (#41980525) Homepage

    The issue is thus:

    a) did not disclose fully the extent of his patent dealings, referenced one more recent issue but failed to disclose the more serious prior issues

    b) provided false, misleading evidence contrary to judges instructions to manipulate the jury

    c) had prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung

    d) was a flat out stupid moron (the latter doesn't affect the case decision, but the first three very much do so)

  • Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CrankyFool (680025) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:58AM (#41980585)

    One way you could look at this that at least feels consistent to me is that jury nullification should work in only one direction. If we still feel comfortable with the idea that "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail," then criminally we should only use jury nullification to err on the side of a lesser punishment and, if we want to use the concept of jury nullification for civil trials (and, certainly, the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits incline me to do so), we should also only use jury nullification to lower but not increase damages.

    If we were to use that logic, in this case it'd mean that we'd be erring on the side of letting Samsung off, because "'rounded corners' is a stupid patent."

  • Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:12AM (#41980763)

    In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing...

    Don't get confused about this. This has nothing to do with "jury nullification". Jury nullification is a very specific and very limited situation. It is your right not to give a criminal conviction to a person who you believe is actually guilty according to the law or who you are told is guilty by the judge. In other words, it is that you can't be forced to give a guilty verdict which you would consider to be deeply morally wrong.

    This doesn't give the jury the right to decide anything they want. For example, in a criminal trial you can give a not guilty verdict even if you think the person probably did break the law. You cannot, however, give a guilty verdict if you think the person didn't do the crime but probably did something else bad.

    In a civil trial, the jury should only decide what they think is most likely to be true. There's no opportunity for jury nullification since there's no guilty verdict available at all.

  • Re:Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:38AM (#41981131)

    Or you could, you know, DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY and not try to get out of jury duty.

    Tired of "idiots" on juries? Serve on one yourself.

  • by jlv (5619) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:43AM (#41981189) Homepage

    Especially if it's true about him!

    Give me a break already... I own a Galaxy Nexus. It's bogus for Apple to claim this is a copy of an iPhone.

  • by Beeftopia (1846720) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:55AM (#41981337)

    Picking random yahoos off the sidewalk, making sure they're sufficiently clueless/pliable, then subjecting them to a barrage of conceptually complex technical and legal points, from experts and lawyers from top schools and companies, and expect them to come to reasonable and accurate conclusions.

    Imagine doing medicine or bridge/building design the same way.

    This might have worked for a low tech agrarian society. But it is not a reliable decision-making system today. The jury system is at best cute and quaint, but certainly not a reliable way to reach accurate and reasonable conclusions.

  • by shentino (1139071) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:58AM (#41981359)

    He deserves a metric fuckton more than that.

    He lied through his teeth UNDER OATH, and that is perjury.

    I hope Samsung presses criminal charges.

  • by Zalbik (308903) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:37PM (#41981835)

    Then what damages does Apple deserve for what Samsung did?

    Should it be ok for one company to do this to another?

    None. And yes, it should be okay.

    Did you actually read the memo? It looked like UI design 101, they just happened to (unfortunately) use the iPhone as the example of how it could be done right.
    It had such amazingly original nuggets such as:
    - increase the size of the daily schedule to make it legible
    - Don't allow duplicate icons to be placed on the home screen
    - Don't allow the keyboard to overlap the text entry screen
    - Reduce the number of steps required to toggle Wi-Fi

    These are the basis of a patent?

  • by PortHaven (242123) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:42PM (#41981911) Homepage

    1. Years before it was a subsidiary doesn't in any way negate holding a grudge.

    2. Well, he stated aspects of patents & prior art. Put forth to the jury "expert testimony", which I do consider evidence. While I am sure lawyers would have a bazillion terms to denote nuances. I think in layman's term the use of evidence was a fine term.

  • by Karzz1 (306015) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:58PM (#41982143) Homepage
    Why would Samsung go through the effort of setting up this farce when they could just as easily have won the case outright had the jury not been rigged? That makes no sense.
  • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @01:11PM (#41982321)

    They asked him for details, he provided incomplete details. Lying by omission is still lying.

  • by cob666 (656740) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @01:15PM (#41982375) Homepage

    Fair enough. What then would a layman call "introduction of testimony from experience(s) outside of the trial to the jury, to directly affect the outcome of the jury's decision" and does that term change if the person responsible for this is the jury foreman?

    There is no definition for this because this type of 'evidence' does not exist. Evidence must be presented in court and the introduction of said evidence must follow rules regarding its admission.

    At the very least he ignored the judge's orders and should be held in contempt.

  • by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @02:42PM (#41983451)
    The contention is not that Apple thought he was biased. That's irrelevant. The contention is that, Apple knew that he lied under oath by not disclosing all of his previous lawsuits. Apple's lawyers, as officers of the court, have a clear duty to disclose any form of dishonesty that they know about.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...