Jury In Apple v. Samsung Case May Have to Agree on 700 Points 111
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.
Jury instructions on emails (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Florian's opinions are just that, opinions. He was being paid by Oracle as he was going on about how doomed Google was in Oracle v. Google (I will note that Florian and Oracle both allege that the money was for an unrelated matter, not writing about the case).
Grain of salt with Florian. He calls it FOSSPatents but has a noticeable anti-open stance.
Re:Jury instructions on emails (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Jury instructions on emails (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
How would you proportionally punish both parties for the offense? If you place unequal penalties on both parties, you get accused from having a double standard. Equal penalties, and it's a handicap that applies equally. Easiest way is to just cancel it out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Samsung nor Apple are part of the US Federal Government. So the FoIA doesn't apply here.
Re: (Score:1)
This is absolutely not true; Apple *does not* have central email storage - everyone downloads their mail from the servers and keeps it on their own machines. I know it surprised me too when I worked there. Your email and documents are your problem to back up - it's the lightest touch IT I've ever seen at a big company.
There were so many document retention notices that you basically never deleted anything.
Samsung had a very short auto-deletion policy, and has been called out on this in the past.
Here is how it shakes out (Score:3, Insightful)
From Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
" There was a lot of back and forth about email spoliation. This revolved around a few points:
First of all, when they established the date by which evidence needed preservation, it became a concern of having a double standard on when Samsung and Apple should have started preserving evidence and putting people on litigation hold. For example, they didn't put Steve Jobs on litigation hold until much later than other people. Judge Koh said
Re:Jury instructions on emails (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Consider this. (Score:1, Interesting)
Juries are relatively unpaid or underpaid, and I can't imagine any of them devoting serious time to so many different points. Although, I guess it depends on one's integrity.
As a side note, and I realize I'll get modded down as off-topic, should jurors get paid minimum wage? Factor in how many hours are being stolen from their lives, and how little that should really cost given the expenseof everything else involved in the judicial process.
Re:Consider this. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think getting paid minimum wage is probably the best thing they can do.
You don't want "Professional Juries" where it is their economic interests to make the trial as long as possible. Then also there is an issue of being fair and getting a good cross section of the population.
The Jury you will often have a guy who makes minimum wage, someone else 20 and hour and someone else 40, 80 an hour. If we pay the people who make more to match their income, then there will be pressure for the judge to get a poorer jury.
Minimum Wage, is enough to keep the jury to try to keep the trial speedy. There is a fair amount of one's integrity, if someone chooses to be a juror (they have plenty of excuses to get out if they want) then it is usually because they are willing to be part of the process, and try to stay just as long to get a fair trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And since nobody wants to make that commitment if the time is much longer than 'this afternoon', the court arbitrarily denies all claims of hardship.
Re:Consider this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if the employer is a small business that can't afford weeks of payroll without the associated profit?
Re: (Score:2)
And if the employer is a small business that can't afford weeks of payroll without the associated profit?
They'll have to do whatever they do in other cases where they have to pay money to someone who is not working, for example, a mother during maternity leave or an ill worker during sick leave. I'm not sure jury duty is much different here.
Re: (Score:2)
Most small employers don't pay maternity leave, and when they do, they generally have several months notice.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, there is such a thing as key person insurance, and if losing the services of an employee would cause you to go under (medical leave happens!), a policy would probably be called for.
Sure, it may be more expensive if you want it to cover extended jury leave, but if that's a business-ending event...
Re: (Score:2)
But why not internalize the externalities of being a litigious bastard and fold it in with the court costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Making legitimate use of the court system prohibitively expensive is a substantial risk here. Moreover, you'd encourage the parties to select juries with lower income potentials rather than an even cross-section... meaning one could end up with less of a jury of peers.
Re: (Score:2)
Legitimate use of the court system is already prohibitively expensive for the vast majority. However, I could see limiting the costs to a small fraction of the amount in dispute or applying that only to corporations.
If both parties agree that low income jurors are preferred, it seems things should be fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
A trial regarding (say) someone harmed due to purported negligence in my role as a landlord is less likely to be fair with a minimum-income jury than with an even cross-section... but if I have to risk footing a large bill for lost income to have a non-minimal-income jury, I may not be able to afford that.
The justice system is already weighted enough towards those with means to hire experts, better lawyers, etc
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I also said I could see limiting the expenses to a small fraction of the dispute. If only the lawyers did that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because having justice be only for those who can afford it is a great way to get people enacting private revenge rather than going through the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could see that for a criminal trial, but why should large corporations get to pass that cost that they created (by suing and suing) off on everyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
At least that demonstrates some sense of responsibility on the court's part.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't, that's how. Did you think this was Europe or something?
Re: (Score:1)
The jurors really don't have much power to make it longer, and the judge already lets most people with jobs off the hook (unless it's a large corporation or the government).
The type of people motivated by minimum wage are not going to be good jurors, we want the ones motivated by duty (most juries have enough of them).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you're paying $6-7/hour or $60/hour, it's going to be a tough haul for some average jurors to stay interested enough to care, let alone keep it all straight in their heads.
Having served on a grand jury in my state for four months (reviewing case, after case, after case, after case... drool), I can attest to how hard it can be to stay focused. When we had a case come up with 30+ counts late in the day, half of the jury would completely zone out, relying on others to make the right choice.
I'm sure the
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, most of those jurors make more than minimum wage normally. Why should their ability to keep the mortgage and car payments up be endangered just because a couple very wealthy corporations can't restrain themselves from behaving like petulant children?
It isn't much better to pass that off on their employer who might be a small business that could actually be pushed over the cliff by such a thing.
Where is the justice in the plaintiff recieving millions (or not) and the jury ends up in forecl
Re: (Score:1)
I think getting paid minimum wage is probably the best thing they can do.
I served jury duty in New Jersey years ago.
The pay has never been raised in something like over a hundred years. You get $5 a day.
They keep you in a room with a small booth in the back that serves lunch. The hamburger, drink, and chips costs more than $5.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar in South Jersey, a couple of years ago... like $5 per day. But the parking was free, and the pizza shop across from the Court House didn't overcharge for a slice. It's a token payment only, not designed in any way to actually compensate you for your lost time. Salaried employees are routinely paid anyway, but hourly workers? I think they're getting hosed.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, at the time the "wage" was set, I'm sure $5 was a decent days pay.
They just never adjusted the pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, jurors get $15 a day for expenses, which barely covers bus fare and lunch in the courthouse cafeteria. Minimum wage? In your dreams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Consider this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Juries are relatively unpaid or underpaid, and I can't imagine any of them devoting serious time to so many different points.
From my experience as being in jury duty, I disagree with this generalization. YMMV obviously, but in the end, this is just a generalization.
Although, I guess it depends on one's integrity.
At the risk of engaging into a generalization myself, people that show up to jury duty and get selected might have a bit or two of integrity. Most people simply ignore or forget to go to a jury duty row call. And of those who show, a lot do the most innane of things to avoid getting selected. Things I've seen:
1. A guy saying he didn't believe in the US legal system, and that he felt getting a US citizenship was one of his biggest mistakes.
2. A guy asking if he needs to read stuff because he really didn't like reading
3. Gratuitous mentioning of using drugs
Some people have genuine reasons to ask not being selected (say a doctor, a struggling businessman, or a parent.) But you get some shitheads showing up saying the most bestial of things just to skip jury duty. Those who stay know they'll lose salary and convenience, and still try to remain honest and useful (myself included.) My experience has been that jurors do their best to judge the evidence at hand and to follow the judge's instructions.
Again, YMMV.
As a side note, and I realize I'll get modded down as off-topic, should jurors get paid minimum wage?
Yes. Or maybe not. But it will be unreasonable for the state to compensate everyone at their daily rates for doing a civil service (which is a responsibility that comes with all the rights we have in a civil society.)
Factor in how many hours are being stolen from their lives,
Stolen? Why stolen? Society gives you a lot of rights and safegards, infrastructures and services, and above all, the right to trial by a jury of your peers (as opposed to jury by the sole hand of a despot or potentate.) In return, you are asked to give a service in return. That service, which is a small token in the grand scheme of things, will cost something in return (inconvenience and loss of some of your salary.)
And no one really forces you to participate if you are really, really cash strapped. You can always ask the selection process to give you a green light to go because of financial duress.
So it is absolutely fucking stupid to use the word "stolen" when it is something that is, much more often than not, a voluntary thing by people who thing it is a fair thing to give back to society some of their time for a very important fabric of civil society: a trial by peers.
and how little that should really cost given the expenseof everything else involved in the judicial process.
The judicial process is already expensive to begin with. It is not unreasonable to ask willing citizens to give some of their time at a lower cost as part of their civic duty to society (in exchange of the many, many, many other things we get.)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, I've wanted to be on a jury. In my entire life I've been called for jury duty once. And wasn't really even questioned.
Meanwhile, I know people who seemed to get called several times in a decade. What gives. I want to be on a jury. Murphy must know...
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted very badly to be on a jury, too. I thought it would be extremely interesting. Then I got called in the town I was born while I was at college. I was not going to travel several hours and miss school, so I filed for "I don't live here". So then of course the next year I got another jury summons for where I went to school, during the summer. Doh! Finally I got a summons after I graduated, was all excited until I learned that if you're called to show up on a day, you don't get paid anything, work won'
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly, the case that I finally did get called to be a potential jury for, as I was sitting in the room waiting to get questioned, they came to a settlement. I'd been given a potential case at that point, so I was back out of the pool. So much for that!
Re: (Score:3)
Stolen? Why stolen? Society gives you a lot of rights and safegards, infrastructures and services, and above all, the right to trial by a jury of your peers (as opposed to jury by the sole hand of a despot or potentate.) In return, you are asked to give a service in return. That service, which is a small token in the grand scheme of things, will cost something in return (inconvenience and loss of some of your salary.)
Strange, every year I seem to get about 40% of my salary taken in return for those conveniences.
Re: (Score:2)
Stolen? Why stolen? Society gives you a lot of rights and safegards, infrastructures and services, and above all, the right to trial by a jury of your peers (as opposed to jury by the sole hand of a despot or potentate.) In return, you are asked to give a service in return. That service, which is a small token in the grand scheme of things, will cost something in return (inconvenience and loss of some of your salary.)
Strange, every year I seem to get about 40% of my salary taken in return for those conveniences.
There is always the option of living outside the realm of developed/industrialized civilization. Myself coming from a country where you can pretty much get by without paying so much taxes (Nicaragua, 2nd poorest country in the Western Hemisphere), specially if you make a lot of moolah and have connections, you should give it a try whenever the thought of paying that much off your salary for those conveniences become too much too bear.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes, Jury Duty, and a few other responsibilities are the price of Civilization. For those unhappy with that price, you can always emigrate to ... Nicaragua :-) Or get very rich, since once you make enough in the USA these days, you apparently no longer have the same level of responsibility. Like tgd paying 40% (pretty high), versus Walter "Mitt" Romney paying about 13%.
Re: (Score:2)
it will be unreasonable for the state to compensate everyone at their daily rates for doing a civil service
Why? The Judge gets paid.
Re: (Score:2)
I can: In my (somewhat limited) experience the people who tend to show up and serve, at least where I live, are at least fairly decent about it, and want to be fair. When I took my turn (I had the time, figured why not), our deliberations were far more based in the facts and the relevant law than either of the attorneys had been throughout the case.
In case you're wondering, we convicted a criminal defendant in a felonious assault: We had the victim's testimony identifying him, DNA evidence from the scene pu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a trial consultant, so I've seen a lot of juries deliberate (a dozen or so, mostly drug related MDL, but some patent things). I've seen them deliberate for 2 and a half days, with one juror missing a Monday from a vacation because of it, and this by choice, when they had the option to not agree at this point. The previous 2 days they stayed till 8 o'clock, carpools were arranged for the jurors that did not have cars.
Say what you want about people, juries tend to work, for 2 reasons:
1) people have good b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
My (admittedly limited, but first hand) experience is completely contrary to your opnion.
Re: (Score:2)
A 100 pages agreement is normal (Score:3)
for all cases as mad as this very one.
I'm just a consumer. (Score:1)
As long as Samsung is found guilty I'm happy.
Why?
As far as I'm concerned, it's no skin off my ass who "wins" or "loses".
Apple "wins" then maybe Samsung will just have to figure out how to be more "innovative" (whatever that means these days) with their products and something newer and maybe better comes out - wristwatch touch screen PDA? Eye glasses that do everything the tablet does only with eye movement?
Samsung "wins" then there isn't any of this IP black cloud and the industry is free to come out with less expensive competition.
Then what's Apple
Re: (Score:2)
They are not mad, they are on crack.
WTF? Apple doesn't back up email? (Score:2)
deleting it is one thing, but shouldn't they have backups of their email server?
Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email? (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention that Sarbanes-Oxley requires I believe all emails to be retained for 7 years.
Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having good backups would greatly complicate one's ability to accidentally lose email, though, so isn't recommended as enterprise best practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's bash Apple because they're doing the same thing...right?
Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email? (Score:4, Insightful)
atlas shrugged... (Score:1)
Sobriety Test? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the judicial process of a juror requires you to suspend your own personal knowledge of "case matters", such as things like "If you run FSCK on a mounted volume, you are an idiot!", if pertinent to a case involving lost or destroyed data.
In this case, your knowledge of silicon lithography techniques and practices would have to be suspended, in favor of what the court PRESENTS. Only matters presented as fact in the court can be deliberated by the jury. Naturally, this gets abused heavily by both the p
700 points ? (Score:2)
I bet the rendering is cropped.
The one-click form. (Score:5, Funny)
In Samsung's case, it's 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, it's 23 questions spread over nine pages.
Well that's Apple for you. Going for ease of use.
Jury Nullification? (Score:2)
You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not.
And even without bringing any constitutional arguments about the role of the jury should be, isn't that sentence in logical contradiction with the following, just 2 lines earlier:
You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.
I knew that in general judges don't want juries to know about jury nullification, but my understanding was that this was done more via omission (not talking about this particular right of a jury at all), rather than outrigh
Re: (Score:2)
Nope...usually it is done by outright lies and a statement that the jurists must obey the judge's outline of interpretation.
And it works most of the time, because most people on a jury are uninformed
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be reading those sentences with a certain bias. The first one literally says that the jury must follow the law, whether or not they agree with it. I don't know what you think that conflicts with in your constitution. You don't want juries deciding that people are murderers, for example, even though they clearly didn't commit murder but the jury doesn't like them.
The second sentence says that the jury must not infer that the judge has an opinion as to the proper verdict. That's not the same t
Re: (Score:2)
There is a considerable body of precedent in common law that the jury is entitled to return a not guilty verdict if it doesn't agree with the law that would result in guilt.
The judge is not entitled to an explanation of the jury's verdict or how they came to it. If they decide that today is guilt-free Tuesday, so be it.
The jury's ability to nullify law is the final non-violent check on government authority. Even attempting to put an end to it is reasonably seen as a power grab.
In the event that the judge se
Re: (Score:3)
No, there is no inconsistency...
The Judge acts as an expert on the law. The Judge decides matters of law in Court cases. There is no need for a Jury when it comes to matters of law. This instruction tells the Jury that the Judge will clarify matters of law, and that the jury must follow the law even if they do not agree with the law. For example, one juror may believe that all software patents are 'like totally bogus, or somethi
Re: (Score:3)
That is incorrect. The jury is fully entitled to nullify a law that it does not agree with. If a juror believes that all software patents are 'like totally bogus, or something!", he is fully entitled to render a not-guilty verdict without regard for the facts of the case. The Judge is not entitled to an explanation of the verdict. The plaintiff's lawyer has the chance to ask the jurors their opinion on software patents before the trial begins and strike the guy who thinks they're 'like totally bogus' at tha
Re:Jury Nullification (Score:2)
Juries can be nailed for a ton of things but are immune from being punished for their verdict. They can have any verdict they want including throwing out the laws in the case or saying the judge is an asshat. The judge can chuck their verdict but can't touch them. Appeals court gets a lot of this stuff so it doesn't matter a whole lot what the jury does.
And if you're lucky... (Score:2)
A question from the jury (Score:4, Informative)
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?"
A fine example.. (Score:1)
of just why a Jury is a Bad Idea®.
restate the obvious (Score:1)
To restate the obvious: The jury verdict is meaningless here, the case will be decided on the appellate level. The sole effect of the trial is to transfer large sums from the bank accounts of Apple and Samsung to the accounts of the law firms.
In a more fitting world (Score:2)
Kind off silly (Score:1)