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This discussion has been archived.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 crazyjj (2598719) * on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:12AM (#41980307)

    They also allege [arstechnica.com] that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung because they own part of Seagate (which had sued him into bankruptcy 20 years ago) and that he's a patent-owner himself (and very pro-patent)--neither fact he disclosed during the jury selection process.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He did disclose the fact he was a patent owner. I don't believe Samsung is claiming he didn't.

      • by jkrise (535370) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:50AM (#41980507) Journal

        He did disclose the fact he was a patent owner. I don't believe Samsung is claiming he didn't.

        Samsung is not claiming he didn't disclose his patent. They are claiming he was pro-patent in a crooked sort of way, by his own admission.

        Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the US patent system.

        • by dimeglio (456244)

          What difference does it make if he's pro patent or not? Patents exist and they are law. If the courts ignore patents, might as well not have any patents at all. The word "strong feeling" might in fact mean if he's against patents at which point he would not have been selected by Apple's lawyers.

          • by backslashdot (95548) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @02:29PM (#41982555)

            A person (err, corporation) has the right to an impartial jury (see sixth amendment). If this guy was partial to patent holders, it means Samsung's right to a fair trial was infringed.

          • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @02:39PM (#41982683)

            A) If he had answered "yes" to the strong feelings question, the next question would have been "How so?", this isn't a check the boxes test that they take and no one ever looks at.
            B) The attitude that Samsung takes issue with is one in which the patent holder is always right simply by virtue of being the patent holder. Patents are law, but that doesn't mean that every accusation made by a patent holder is valid.
            C) When you combine B with the influence he reportedly had over the jury during deliberations, you can easily get a situation where a case should be thrown out. Having what is for all intents and purposes a representative of one of the parties interests (since his overlap with theirs) in the jury room, interacting 1 on 1 with the other jurors, even in a position of authority over them (by virtue of being the jury foreman) is poisoning the pool.

            If Samsung con convincingly establish that this is what happened they absolutely have a valid case.

    • Samsung alleges lots of things, as you would do if a court decided that you should pay more than a million dollars. However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.

      I think it was known to Samsung that he was a patent other. Being a patent owner doesn't make him pro-patent, and if he was, then Sams
      • by PortHaven (242123) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:53AM (#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)

      • by jkrise (535370) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:55AM (#41980557) Journal

        However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.

        Please do not spout such bullshit. The judge asked everyone if they were EVER involved in any prior litigation. Hogan half-assedly replied that he was involved in 1 litigation; but conveniently and untruthfully left out the Seagate litigation. He claimed in an interview that he did not mention the Seagate litigation because it was more than 10 years past; and that the judge specified a 10-year past limit.

        Of course, Hogan was lying through his teeth, and deserves to get booted out; and pay for the cost of the retrial.

        • by shentino (1139071) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:58PM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @01:29PM (#41981731)

            In the US legal system, individuals do not press criminal charges. Only the state (via the Attorneys General) can do that.

            When a victim chooses "not to press charges" what they are really doing is refusing to testify against the suspect. The state still has full discretion as to whether charges will be pressed. Charges are often dropped because the victim's testimony is a large portion of the case.

      • by iapetus (24050) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:56AM (#41980559) Homepage

        You need to read Samsung's reply, which is in the Groklaw article linked from the page. It answers all your points, and does it in a clear and definitive way. It also makes clear a lot of their other arguments, which you conveniently ignore here; that he indisputably failed to follow the judge's instructions, introducing inaccurate 'expert testimony' of his own that was wrong on just about every point of law that the jury ruled on. It's indisputable because he's been running his mouth off about it ever since.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You need to read Samsung's reply, which is in the Groklaw article linked from the page.

          you're such an idealist! rtfa? that would be a miracle as such :)

        • Dunno. If I were on a jury, I don't think I would try to call attention to myself.

          Forget about any legal exposure. Does South Korea have a "Mafia"? I don't think I would want to find out.

          Everyone around here seems to play up the Samsumg complaining about sour grapes angle. I want to play up the "just keep one's (fine, fine) mouth shut" angle, especially as a juror post jury trial.

          • by Maow (620678)

            Dunno. If I were on a jury, I don't think I would try to call attention to myself.

            Forget about any legal exposure. Does South Korea have a "Mafia"? I don't think I would want to find out.

            Everyone around here seems to play up the Samsumg complaining about sour grapes angle. I want to play up the "just keep one's (fine, fine) mouth shut" angle, especially as a juror post jury trial.

            I mostly agree, though the mafia bit is a touch too paranoid even for someone who's paranoid like myself.

            Anyway, here's what Samsung said about it, emphasis added:

            Mr. Hogan’s explanations for his answers are not “plausible,” Dyer, 151 F.3d at 975, and he was not “indifferent to service on the jury,” id. at 982. An “individual who lies in order to improve his chances of service has too much of a stake in the matter to be considered indifferent.” Id. Mr. Hogan

        • by Rich0 (548339)

          Yup. In fact, one of the citations in it quoted some ruling that answering a question in part, but leaving out the parts that you know are likely to lead to qualification, is EXACTLY the sort of thing that constitutes serious juror misconduct.

    • by GeekWithAKnife (2717871) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:57AM (#41980573)

      They also allege [arstechnica.com] that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung because they own part of Seagate (which had sued him into bankruptcy 20 years ago) and that he's a patent-owner himself (and very pro-patent)--neither fact he disclosed during the jury selection process.

      Well folks, there you have it. The hidden dangers of old grunge; my mother always said it's Satan's music.

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      They also allege [arstechnica.com] that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung

      He also smells like teen spirit.

  • Not so Fast (Score:4, Informative)

    by neokushan (932374) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:39AM (#41980439)

    IANAL, but I believe that a lot of what Hogan has said during post-trial interviews cannot actually be submitted to court as evidence? Or at least, the Judge can't use his statements to influence her decision on what to do with him. Can anyone clarify on this?

    The stuff about him being sued by Seagate is definitely grounds for a mistrial, though.

    • by PortHaven (242123)

      Why not?

      • by neokushan (932374)

        Something about how what goes on in the Jury room is sacred and nobody's supposed to know about it to remain impartial or something?

        • Re:Not so Fast (Score:5, Informative)

          by reimero (194707) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:23PM (#41980897)

          Actually, juror statements after the fact CAN be called into question. While the Court and the litigating parties have no direct sway over what happens inside the deliberation chambers, if the jurors go on public record after the fact, that may cause grounds for further examination of the verdict. It's more accurate to say, what happens in the jury room may only be revealed by the jurors themselves - which they did, in this case. What makes this situation ironic is that Hogan blabbed about it and wouldn't shut up. Had his ego not demanded he talk to the press about it - a lot - and that he stand on his soapbox, Samsung would have had a far weaker argument of juror misconduct.

          The bar for proving juror misconduct is very high, and lawyers are usually reluctant to play that card. By going on the record to the media, Hogan is making Samsung's case much, much easier.

          • by neokushan (932374)

            I was hoping that someone would say that and that's good to know. I think anyone paying attention to this case can see it's clearly juror misconduct, but knowing that it's hard to prove is worrying.

        • by PortHaven (242123)

          I thought that was only during the trial. Not afterwards.

        • by sjames (1099)

          The jury cannot be compelled to discuss what went on in the jury room. He voluntarily flapped his gums about it to anyone who would listen.

  • Vermin Hogan? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:44AM (#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.

    • If there had to be a person with a vendetta against a major producer of technology and by proxy, an open source operating system that in my view is really improving the mobile experience over what apple and MS would have given us, we should be grateful it was such a fucking moron that he may have sabotaged himself. By opening his big stupid mouth, he lessened the chances that we'd be stuck in the future choosing between an overpriced iphone and whatever windows and nokia have to offer.
  • Very curiously... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jkrise (535370) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:45AM (#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!

    • 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...

      Not strange at all... Apple isn't claiming Hogan is biased, so they have no need to provide evidence of when they had knowledge about his past activities, since that knowledge is irrelevant, as far as their claims are concerned. On the contrary, Samsung is claiming Hogan is biased, and if they knew about his past activities before trial and waited to play it as a card if they lost, then that may mean that they've waived the opportunity to bring it up now.

      Or, to put it another way - if (A) either party knew

      • by jkflying (2190798)

        Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.

        • Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.

          Not at all... If Apple doesn't think Hogan is biased, then they had no duty to mention the suit. Furthermore, Apple has no duty to presume that Samsung would find him biased and mention it. That's Samsung's job, and if Apple were making assumptions for them, we'd be rightly outraged. Apple can only act in their own name, and if they didn't think his Seagate suit biased him, then they had no reason to raise it.

          • by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @03:42PM (#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.
    • Re:Very curiously... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PortHaven (242123) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @01:59PM (#41982151) Homepage

      Actually, my understanding was that after the case was over, and names of jurors were out in the public. The spouse of a lawyer recognized his name from a prior case. And that's what triggered the revelation...

      So not sure how that wasn't answered?

    • by Martin S. (98249)

      Will you elaborate?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Wait, George Foreman and Hulk Hogan have been made into a Composite abomination of some kind?

    Are they trying to sell the George Foreman and Hulk Hogan Combination Grill and Hair dryer or something?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:48AM (#41980493)

    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.

    So, he talked out of his ass.

    He must be a regular here on Slashdot! And he probably has karma out the Yin Yang to boot!

  • by paiute (550198) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:01PM (#41980621)
    We need some real answers, not AC speculation.

    1. Why didn't Samsung's lawyers know every detail about every potential juror? Is that not allowed in this court? Did each side not get to ask questions of each potential juror?
    2. How much of the jury's actions are protected and how much are not?
    3. Are Apple's lawyers required to share everything they find out about the case in their own digging with the opposition?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:23PM (#41980893)

      Samsung's Laywers only knew as much about the Jurors as the Jurors themselves disclosed. Any further investigation of the Jurors could be considered jury tampering. More importantly, the Jury's actions are only protected if they are taken within the law. If a juror's actions are illegal, they have no protection.

      Now, in this case I don't think that the Foreman's actions were necessarily illegal, and as such I doubt he can be prosecuted or sued for them, but they do raise a number of questions about the propriety of the verdict and damage award. My guess is that there are two things that could result from this:

      1) The verdict could be overturned and a new trial ordered. At this point, the jury is irrevocably tainted and replacing the foreman with an alternate and re-deliberating is just not an option.
      2) The foreman may be held in contempt by the judge - I'm not sure what legal grounds the judge actually has to do this, but I know that if the case ends up having to be retried because of the foreman's actions, it will SERIOUSLY piss off the judge. And if there's one thing you DON'T want to do, it's piss off a judge in their own courtroom.

      I suspect that the verdict will be overturned, as it's becoming clear that there are compelling arguments that the law was not followed, and thus allowing it to stand will weaken the judicial system as a whole. What would be interesting is if the judge decides somehow that Apple should have known that the foreman was tainted and withheld that information from the court, and as a result the judge decides to not only overturn the verdict, but reverse it and find in favor of Samsung. I doubt that would stand up to an appeal though, so I expect that won't happen, but you never know...

    • by reimero (194707) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:42PM (#41981173)

      I'm not a lawyer, but Groklaw answers a fair amount of this. I've also sat on a jury before, if that makes any difference.
      1. This is one of the points being argued. The gist of Samsung's arguments is that there is a legal standard that believes that a prospective juror under oath is to be believed unless there is reason not to believe. The threshold for breaching a prospective juror's privacy is much higher than that for breaching an interested party's. Jury selection is long and complicated as it is. When a juror says, "I was involved in 1 lawsuit involving XYZ" and there is no apparent need for follow-up on other suits, lawyers typically won't follow up. There is trust that jurors will be forthcoming, because they took an oath that they would be forthcoming.
      2. "Protected" is a complicated word. Basically, the Court issues instructions to the jury, and trusts that the jury will abide by those instructions. It requires an extraordinary level to prove that a jury acted outside the bounds of the Court's instructions. It's one thing if the jury's verdict doesn't jive with what the Court thinks it should be. It is another matter entirely when there is evidence of willful misconduct by a juror. Basically, if it can be demonstrated that a juror was willfully disregarding jury instructions or otherwise was acting as an "interested party", that juror could face sanction from the court, including the possibility of having to pay at least some of the costs. It essentially comes down to jury tampering. The bar for proving this is very high, but a juror's own words after the trial can be used against him or her.
      3. This is also a complicated question. Lawyers want to win, yes, but they also have a fairly rigorous set of legal ethics to which they must adhere. This is a civil trial, so they are not under the same burden a criminal prosecutor is. Apple doesn't need to make Samsung's case for Samsung. At the same time, anything they plan to introduce at trial needs to pass through Samsung first so that Samsung may object or present a defense. Cases like this have very few "Aha!" moments. They have TONS of filings, briefs, depositions, cross-depositions and so forth. The court's job is to make sure the trial is fair and that both sides get their say. That said, if Apple had prior knowledge of juror bias, they did have a legal obligation to make the Court aware of this bias.

      • 1. This is one of the points being argued. The gist of Samsung's arguments is that there is a legal standard that believes that a prospective juror under oath is to be believed unless there is reason not to believe. The threshold for breaching a prospective juror's privacy is much higher than that for breaching an interested party's. Jury selection is long and complicated as it is. When a juror says, "I was involved in 1 lawsuit involving XYZ" and there is no apparent need for follow-up on other suits, lawyers typically won't follow up. There is trust that jurors will be forthcoming, because they took an oath that they would be forthcoming.

        But, contrary to what an AC said above, Samsung was certainly entitled to research the juror, and certainly due diligence would include seeing if his name was a party to a lawsuit.
        The bigger question here was whether Samsung did that research, and whether they knew about the Seagate suit pre-trial. If they did, and they sat on that information in case of a losing verdict, then they may have waived any opportunity to bring it up now... unlike the movies, you don't get to keep cards up your sleeves in litiga

        • by Jerry Atrick (2461566) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @01:30PM (#41981737)

          "due diligence would include seeing if his name was a party to a lawsuit"
           
          ...which doesn't work very well if the case records are no longer available to be found, as Samsung point out in their filings. The only reason anyone knows about the Seagate case is one lawyers personal recollection and Hogan incriminating himself, both occurring after the trial.

        • by bws111 (1216812)

          Exactly who 'entitled' Samsung to investigate jurors?

          And no, they should not have to do that. They should not even be allowed to do that. There was no reason for Samsung to think that the juror was lying, unless you are prepared to say that ALL potential jurors in ALL potential cases should be considered liars, deserving off full background checks just because they MAY be called on to perform their civic duty.

    • by Maow (620678)

      We need some real answers, not AC speculation.

      1. Why didn't Samsung's lawyers know every detail about every potential juror? Is that not allowed in this court? Did each side not get to ask questions of each potential juror?

      2. How much of the jury's actions are protected and how much are not?

      3. Are Apple's lawyers required to share everything they find out about the case in their own digging with the opposition?

      A couple things from Samsung's submission:

      Only by chance did Samsung discover the suit by Seagate against Mr. Hogan while it was investigating these other potential bias issues reported post-verdict; and because the court file no longer exists, it was even later that Samsung discovered Mr. Hogan’s lawsuit against Seagate when Mr. Hogan himself disclosed it in an interview.

      Nevertheless, Apple insists that Samsung waived because it “could have” and “should have” discovered the di

    • If you had read the motion (or even the summary) you would know the answers to your first question.

      Apple argues...that Samsung waived its juror bias argument by failing to make it sooner, but Samsung could not reasonably have ascertained Mr. Hogan’s dishonesty before the jury’s verdicts. As Samsung has made clear and Apple cannot dispute, Mr. Hogan made public statements after the verdicts that so clearly favored Apple that the press speculated about their possible financial ties.... Only by cha

  • by Maow (620678) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:50PM (#41981291) Journal

    Reading through Samsung's submission over at Groklaw, the whole juror misconduct is a rather minor part.

    It goes on for pages about Apple's arguments during trial and disputes their claims, for example:

    Apple’s attack on the legal standard for design patent infringement underscores the gaps in its evidence. First, the rule that “design patent infringement requires similarity so great as to deceive in purchasing” is not a “false premise” (Opp. 4) but rather the established standard for over a century. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871) (test is whether “the resemblance is such as to

    5
    deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other”). Apple’s authority confirms this. Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1303-06 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (infringement found where accused products were likely to “cause market confusion”). Apple’s experts conceded that purchasers would not be confused. RT 1101:11-1102:8; 1103:2-1104:18; 1424:3-1425:22.

    It goes on like this for pages and makes a very compelling argument.

  • by Beeftopia (1846720) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:55PM (#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.

  • His own words to the press make it clear he deceived the rest of the jury.

Only God can make random selections.

Working...