Samsung vs Apple bombshell. Jury foreman worked for Seagate, sued by them. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Samsung vs Apple bombshell. Jury foreman worked for Seagate, sued by them.


Gallium
10-03-2012, 02:10
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57524935-37/samsung-claims-apple-patent-verdict-tainted-by-jury-foreman/


What a piece of **** maroon.

4Rules
10-03-2012, 06:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Z4qy9jYsXPc#t=23s

kensb2
10-03-2012, 06:39
Tagged, waiting for some of the lawyer types here to chime in on this....

hamster
10-03-2012, 06:54
That is an interesting one. On the surface I'd say there is certainly the appearance of possible bias.

However, If I were to hold a grudge against every investor of every company I've ever worked for or been wronged by... I'd have to be a very very angry guy.

Every single juror probably has Samsung and/or Apple stock in their 401ks, does that make them biased?

Gallium
10-03-2012, 07:48
That is an interesting one. On the surface I'd say there is certainly the appearance of possible bias.

However, If I were to hold a grudge against every investor of every company I've ever worked for or been wronged by... I'd have to be a very very angry guy.

Every single juror probably has Samsung and/or Apple stock in their 401ks, does that make them biased?


Except he was asked during jury selection, and having to file bankruptcy by a company, and then sit on a trial as jury foreman for their largest shareholder will never pass any sniff test.

hamster
10-03-2012, 08:00
Except he was asked during jury selection, and having to file bankruptcy by a company, and then sit on a trial as jury foreman for their largest shareholder will never pass any sniff test.

True.

.264 magnum
10-03-2012, 08:01
Except he was asked during jury selection, and having to file bankruptcy by a company, and then sit on a trial as jury foreman for their largest shareholder will never pass any sniff test.

I think the weakness in Samsung's argument is timing. If memory serves Samsung was not a big investor in Seagate when the guy was sued.

However, it appears he is a turd for not fessing up. It's also true that people compartmentalize things and maybe he didn't recognize the problem.

Also, lawyers sell harder than starving used car salesmen. It'll be interesting to see how this goes.

hamster
10-03-2012, 08:10
I think the weakness in Samsung's argument is timing. If memory serves Samsung was not a big investor in Seagate when the guy was sued.

However, it appears he is a turd for not fessing up. It's also true that people compartmentalize things and maybe he didn't recognize the problem.

Also, lawyers sell harder than starving used car salesmen. It'll be interesting to see how this goes.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea who the investors are in half of the companies I deal with. If he is anything like me, It is entirely plausible the guy had no idea Samsung bought a majority of Seagate.

uhlawpup
10-03-2012, 09:43
Methinks the grapes were a bit tart on the tongue.

Or perhaps straws were needed but Samsung's grasp was wanting.

We must bite the apple only once for fairness to prevail.

.264 magnum
10-03-2012, 10:14
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea who the investors are in half of the companies I deal with. If he is anything like me, It is entirely plausible the guy had no idea Samsung bought a majority of Seagate.

Agreed.

.264 magnum
10-03-2012, 10:16
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea who the investors are in half of the companies I deal with. If he is anything like me, It is entirely plausible the guy had no idea Samsung bought a majority of Seagate.

Agreed - and just looked it up. Seagate bought Samsung's HDD unit last year.

Gallium
10-03-2012, 11:17
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea who the investors are in half of the companies I deal with. If he is anything like me, It is entirely plausible the guy had no idea Samsung bought a majority of Seagate.


It does not matter. It's like being asked "have you ever been arrested by the police?". It does not matter if he was, but by another agency.

He was asked if he'd ever been involved in a lawsuit, and (apparently) said no.

Everything so far posted from my phone, any errors - grammatical, factual or other will be fixed once I get back to the mother-ship).

Taphius
10-03-2012, 21:21
The groklaw excerpt is pretty damning

RWBlue
10-03-2012, 21:32
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea who the investors are in half of the companies I deal with. If he is anything like me, It is entirely plausible the guy had no idea Samsung bought a majority of Seagate.

+1

I am a computer guy and I didn't know. Then again, I haven't been sued by Apple, Seagate or Samsung.

Gallium
10-04-2012, 02:39
+1

I am a computer guy and I didn't know. Then again, I haven't been sued by Apple, Seagate or Samsung.


Again, I agree with you too, but if you are on a jury for a case (example) Cisco vs 3COM, or Microsoft vs Oracle, and you are asked during vior dire (again, example) if you have ever been involved in a lawsuit, and say no...and it later comes out after trial that you were involved in a lawsuit with HP, which forced you into bankruptcy...and that same company purchased the entire division for one of the companies on the docket...it would not pass a sniff test.

That is their contention - not that the guy didn't know who was in tech bed with whom, but that he obfuscated or lied when asked about any potentially conflicts or relevance to the proceedings.

airmotive
10-04-2012, 04:39
Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Samsung lawyers knew about this guy's background all along...and just kept that info in their back pocket in case their trial went pear-shaped. (which it did in spectacular fashion).

Gallium
10-04-2012, 05:48
Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Samsung lawyers knew about this guy's background all along...and just kept that info in their back pocket in case their trial went pear-shaped. (which it did in spectacular fashion).


No, because it is much harder to unring a rung bell. :)

They are indeed grasping at straws, but that is their right to appeal the ruling, using any technicality, or miscarriage (real, imaginary or perceived) of justice.

johnd
10-04-2012, 06:08
The high tech business is one of the most incestuous businesses around so it should be no surprise that probably any nexus could be made to any player by any other player in that business.
The real issue should be that the trial was correct and that a decision was made on the premise that all the evidence was presented.
That we have a litigation delivery system, that we have a courts system and we dont have a justice system is secondary to this case.

Hyksos
10-04-2012, 06:13
Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Samsung lawyers knew about this guy's background all along...and just kept that info in their back pocket in case their trial went pear-shaped. (which it did in spectacular fashion).

Plus you get more billable hours that way!

If you win, you win. If you lose, well, you know that you got a whole slew of stuff to appeal with. This crap can drag on forever. There was a REAL case down here in Miami in front of the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal recently about a woman who bought a used car in 2003, and found out that the carfax had an erroneous mileage report on it or something.

Essentially, there was a $700 discrepancy between what she paid and what she should have paid. Well, in 2011 (8 years later)...the lady had put 70k miles on the car, was still driving it, and had an attorney arguing in front of 3 appellate judges that she should be entitled to damages because of a $700 discrepancy on a car that she has since driven 70k. So yeah, even the judges pointed this out.

I doubt the Apple/Samsung case is over. There's still potential for years of remands, new trials, and new appeals.

brisk21
10-04-2012, 07:42
Wow. Its so crazy how they are battling eachother in court, but do business with one another at the same time. Samsung makes the retina displays, and God knows what else. Its all silly though. People that are gonna buy the Iphone, are gonna buy the Iphone whether Samsung copys it or not. Im about to go get the Samsung Galaxy S3!!

SRS
10-04-2012, 08:32
Out of curiosity, I took a look at Samsung's motion regarding this issue. While it will be informative to see Apple's response, I think that Apple has a real problem. If I had to guess, my bet is that this will result in a new trial. Of course, that's very far from certain.

With respect to Samsung knowing this information and withholding it, I very much doubt it. Too much was as stake, and taking that kind of gamble would be an extremely high risk (and likely unethical) move even for Quinn Emanuel, Samsung's attorneys.

johnd
10-04-2012, 11:40
Its all fluff in the end.
I have no doubt that someone else "invented" or created what they are arguing about.
Big companies steal ideas all the time and not from other big companies either but its those big companies that patent or copyright what they steal.
If ever the patent and tort system here changes we would find that most big inventions were not created by these so called advanced high tech companies but by some guy or gal with an idea years ahead of their filing.
Been there done that been robbed more than once.

RWBlue
10-04-2012, 15:43
Again, I agree with you too, but if you are on a jury for a case (example) Cisco vs 3COM, or Microsoft vs Oracle, and you are asked during vior dire (again, example) if you have ever been involved in a lawsuit, and say no...and it later comes out after trial that you were involved in a lawsuit with HP, which forced you into bankruptcy...and that same company purchased the entire division for one of the companies on the docket...it would not pass a sniff test.

That is their contention - not that the guy didn't know who was in tech bed with whom, but that he obfuscated or lied when asked about any potentially conflicts or relevance to the proceedings.

If they actually asked the guy have you ever been part of a lawsuit and he said no, then he is hung out to dry. Maybe he should get the same punishment as Clinton did for lying under oath?

I was expecting the standard, have any history with either of these companies.

brisk21
10-05-2012, 08:27
Its all fluff in the end.
I have no doubt that someone else "invented" or created what they are arguing about.
Big companies steal ideas all the time and not from other big companies either but its those big companies that patent or copyright what they steal.
If ever the patent and tort system here changes we would find that most big inventions were not created by these so called advanced high tech companies but by some guy or gal with an idea years ahead of their filing.
Been there done that been robbed more than once.


Yeah, I think that it comes down to the fact that apples lawyers convinced them that they could win a big lawsuit over it. They probably just looked at it like extra revenue.