Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Courts Patents Apple Your Rights Online

Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung 186

quantr writes with the news that Apple claims that the company "wasn't aware during trial that the foreman of the jury that issued a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung Electronics Co. was involved in a lawsuit with his former employer, Seagate Technology Inc. 'Samsung asked Apple to disclose when it first learned about the litigation between the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, and Seagate. Apple responded in a filing yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California. Samsung is attempting to get the Aug. 24 verdict thrown out based on claims the trial was tainted by the foreman's failure during jury selection to tell U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, who presided over the case, that he filed for bankruptcy in 1993 and was sued by Seagate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung

Comments Filter:
  • What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stevew ( 4845 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @11:28AM (#42154457) Journal

    Why did it take them so bloody long to reply then?

  • by stevez67 ( 2374822 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @11:33AM (#42154475)
    Talk about grasping at straws. Oh wait ... no ... just ambulance chasers keeping the $$'s flowing. In other news everyone on the Jury has bought either a Samsung or Apple product or product containing a Samsung part at some point in their life and obviously tainted the jury.
  • by BlackTriangle ( 581416 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @11:39AM (#42154497)
    A big company might not care, but a personal human being can hold a grudge forever. I know I would. This foreman tried to slip one by and now has been caught by the pure luck of the story of two star-crossed lawyers.
  • Blogspam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrsam ( 12205 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @11:40AM (#42154503) Homepage
    This submission spams a boring blog, with a link to the real article [].
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 01, 2012 @11:46AM (#42154531)

    Look, the problem here isn't the jury, or the decision. Samsung did infringe that patent.

    It's the BLOODY STUPID PATENT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED. A patent that fails basic common sense tests of invention, prior art and obviousness, because the patent office has gotten so far away from reality that it gives patents for existing stuff simply by adding "on a handset".

    So you may have wished the jury was just normal people, who would see the stupidness of it, and reject the claim regardless of the patent, but instead you got a person who FOLLOWED THE PATENT LAW, the insane stupid, nonsensical law, and promptly issued a $1 billion penalty that was appropriate, if we all lived in a lunatic asylum where this patent regime makes sense.

    IMHO, the fix for this decision is for Korea to issue a patent infringement case against Apple for $2 billion, and make it clear to everyone that this is just protectionism disguised as an 'innovative' curved corner design, and a camera icon that looks like a camera.

  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 01, 2012 @11:56AM (#42154581)

    Because in 2012 the truth doesn't matter, only what can be proven. So first they had to figure out what evidence there was.

  • by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @11:57AM (#42154597)

    Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get.
    They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this.
    Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.
    I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.

  • by sribe ( 304414 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:05PM (#42154621)

    The jury foreman did not have a previous tangle with Samsug. He had a previous tangle with Seagate. Seagate is not a subsidiary of Samsung. Samsung has invested in Seagate to the extent of a 10% share.

    It seems a stretch to claim that the foreman's anger at Seagate from 20 years ago must necessarily extend to all current investors in Seagate.

  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:07PM (#42154639)

    He was involved a lawsuit with Seagate, which is not Samsung.

    Every juror who purchased an Apple product but no Samsung phone could be said to be biased in favor of Apple (they chose the Apple product over a Samsung product, after all).

    Every juror who purchased a Samsung product, but not an Apple smartphone could be said to be biased in favor of Samsung.

    You want jurors who own devices from both, or who own devices from neither, eg.. Blackberry / Windows 7 Phone / Palm owners.

  • by medv4380 ( 1604309 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:21PM (#42154693)
    People have held grudges for far less. However, his deliberate miss interpretation of the jury instructions is almost certainly rooted in his past legal battles.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:40PM (#42154789)

    Samsung didn't know, either, so are they incompetent or lying?

    They probably did, but it was a strategic move - they were gathering arguments for a possible appeal in case of a bad verdict. When lawyers discover a serious flaw or misconduct in the trial, they don't report it (or protest against it) at first. They use it later for appeals.

  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:43PM (#42154801)
    When asked "did (the collective) you know about x?", and you did know, it may be easy to answer quickly - you only need identify one individual or document with that knowledge. To answer that you didn't know requires that all parties who could have known be asked, along with checking all relevant records. It's much harder to prove a negative, as they say.
  • by rogueippacket ( 1977626 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:45PM (#42154813)
    My understanding of the U.S. Legal System may not be up to snuff, but doesn't handpicking a jury (based upon their personal tastes) defeat the entire purpose? It would be like asking all of your selected jurors whether they or someone they love has been involved in a violent crime, and only admitting those who have into a case where the defendant is on trial for murder. At that point, it won't matter if it's Mr. Rogers on trial - every single person in the jury is now extremely emotionally invested, instead of neutral and supposedly rational. Selecting a random group ensures that there may only be one or two people with such an investment, and the odds of them swaying an entire jury are quite low if the facts presenting are overwhelming.
  • by paimin ( 656338 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:51PM (#42154845)
    Well, it didn't stop this bullshit flamebait article submission from outright stating in the headline that the foreman preciously "tangled" with Samsung. Slashdot has literally become Idiocracy.
  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karzz1 ( 306015 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:57PM (#42154869) Homepage
    I suggest you read up [] on this a bit. I agree that the Seagate/Samsung tie seems to be a bit tenuous until you look at what this man did to get on the jury. He wanted to be there and that, my friend, demonstrates bias.

    Upon further research, it appears that he also ignored the judge's specific instructions, presumably because as a (former?) patent holder, he knew more about patent law than the judge does.

    If this was a fishing expedition, it was a good day out fishing.
  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by akboss ( 823334 ) <akboss@suddenBAL ... net minus author> on Saturday December 01, 2012 @12:59PM (#42154877)
    So in your opinion the Jury Foreman was right to with hold the fact that he was involved in other lawsuits, including one against Samsung where he LOST the verdict. It is ok in your world when the Judge asks you to disclose ALL litigation to with hold the one important one against the defendant.
  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thaylin ( 555395 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @01:16PM (#42154997)
    you are forgetting that the only reason samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of samsung before he spoke up.
  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karzz1 ( 306015 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @01:23PM (#42155045) Homepage
    Except that Apple never should have won in the first place and almost certainly will lose on appeal. If the jury had not been tainted by a jury foreman with an agenda, Apple would never have won -- and before you dispute this, please do some research. This man is on record incriminating himself.
  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Duncan Booth ( 869800 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @01:27PM (#42155077) Homepage
    Because one of Apple's objections to Samsung's motion to have the verdict overturned is that the information was readily available so Samsung should have known during the trial and therefore they've missed their opportunity to object. If Apple didn't know during the trial it undermines their argument (whereas if they had known and not brought it up it would have been even worse for them).
  • by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @01:40PM (#42155167)

    Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that.
    However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 01, 2012 @02:21PM (#42155433)

    Now you're committing a grave mistake. You're trying to bring reason into something that is basically isn't about reason at all.

    If this Vermin Hogan had been a man of reason, he would have realized that whatever he lost long a ago is gone, and creating a mess for anyone in anyway related to Seagate won't make that undone. It will only create trouble for himself starting by having to do jury duty and possibly ending by being in receiving end of criminal prosecution as well as a retaliatory lawsuit from a very angry, multi-billion company with extremely expensive lawyers who can make him live in a cardboard box for the rest of his life, and the resources to follow him to the end of the earth if it's what it takes.

    However, he has thrown all that out the window in the name of getting even. Reason have no place in this.

  • by Volastic ( 2781511 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @03:17PM (#42155873)

    My understanding of the U.S. Legal System may not be up to snuff, but doesn't handpicking a jury (based upon their personal tastes) defeat the entire purpose? It would be like asking all of your selected jurors whether they or someone they love has been involved in a violent crime, and only admitting those who have into a case where the defendant is on trial for murder.

    I've been involved in two jury trials and one Jury "picking"
    at each one the very first questions asked (for weeding
    purposes) were if anyone had ever filed for bankruptcy, or been
    involved in any previous lawsuits. There might be exceptions
    but those people were excused when I was in attendance.

    I was once asked if I thought if a police man would lie, as it
    was pertinent to the case, "Hell ya!" and I was off that jury, but
    anybody who said no I felt had a warped sense of reality.

  • by rtfa-troll ( 1340807 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @04:00PM (#42156233)

    However, Seagate's "hard drive division" is not Seagate. Buying out their business unit, shutting it down, and transferring the business to a Samsung business unit, doesn't make Samsung seagate.

    How are your feelings about this relevant to the discussion? What matters is the man's feelings - maybe he ascribed blame to Samsung however logical or illogical. What also matters are Samsung's feelings - did they feel they would be fairly judged. Finally what matters is the mans honesty.

    The man lied. He got on the jury in a situation where normally he would have been barred. He then, according to his own admission, broke the law in order to damage Samsung. Those are the facts. The only question is whether Apple knew about his dishonesty and so was complicit. It seems that they did not. This shows that their claim that Samsung should have known was unreasonable.

  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @04:07PM (#42156299) Homepage

    It was no fishing expedition. It was the foreman's own ego that is doing him and his trial in. No question he has a mission and intent in all of this. He stated as much in his many interviews. Things he said like "wanting to send a message" demonstrates he wanted to be judge, jury and executioner.

    As far as knowing more about patent law? Either this guy doesn't know what he thinks he knows about the applicability of patents (he said something didn't infringe because of the processor it ran on was different? Really? By that standard, nothing infringes on Apple devices because Apple uses "special processors.") or he blew ample amounts of false information out to the rest of the jury to get the results he wanted. Either way, it's misbehavior on the part of this jurist. This is definitely one for the books and if this guy doesn't get some sort of action taken against him, it will be a little surprising. (Though I can see the argument for letting him slide on this... we don't want to discourage jurists from participating or we will NEVER have juries if they have risk of being prosecuted themselves... they will have to be careful about that.)

    Apple's cases are becoming crap. The more data that comes out, the easier it becomes to win against Apple. And the more people win against Apple, the harder it will be for Apple to squeeze settlements out of people. I think we're already seeing an end of this debacle of Apple going thermonuclear. If Jobs were alive, I think he would have halted all of this long before it tarnished Apple's image as it has. Apple just looks like a spoiled rich kid now.

  • Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @05:53PM (#42156917) Homepage

    Also isn't it the job of Samsungs lawyers to ask the jury members questions during jury selection to make sure they're not biased? Samsung should be suing their lawyers for missing this, it's not apple's fault.

    That's not the issue here. The issue is that Apple has claimed that Samsung should have known about the foreman's connection, and must have been hiding the information deliberately in case they needed to appeal. So Samsung asked, "well, did you know?" If Apple answered in the affirmative, then they open themselves up to the same complaint they made about Samsung. If they answer in the negative, then their claim about Samsung becomes nothing but sheer unfounded speculation. Apple had no winning card to play here, so they chose the least harmful one.

  • Re:What's up! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) on Saturday December 01, 2012 @09:38PM (#42158293) Journal

    Not in this case. See this transcript from groklaw. []

    THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence.
    Let's continue with the questions.
    The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?
    Let's see. On the first row, who would raise their hand to that question?
    All right. Let's go to Mr. Hogan.

    I'm pretty sure "THE COURT" means the Judge. And I left the "Mr. Hogan" in there too, so there was no doubt.

  • Re:What's up! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02, 2012 @03:59AM (#42159869)

    The problem with that theory is Samsung actually makes products in the US while Apple outsources all of their product assembly. so Samsung really is doing more to stimulate the US economy than Apple is.

Civilization, as we know it, will end sometime this evening. See SYSNOTE tomorrow for more information.