Google's Android is Eating Apple's Lunch

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse).

Exactly. He strikes me as a very arrogant person, presuming to know the law better than lawyers/judges, and assuming the role of leader in deliberations, misleading the jury into thinking that prior art didn't apply because "it does not run on the same hardware". I do not presume to know whether this is basis for mistrial, but it's certainly wrong.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, that's the cynical side. The honourable side is that they could hardly complain in the US that Apple was trying to stifle competition with injunctions and continue with their own injunction suit once the US ban was denied.

Regardless of the reasons, it does represent a small de-escalation which is a good thing.

Graham

In this rendering, cynical is synonymous with truthful and honourable is synonymous with marketing spin.

I must say I fail to understand the headlines altogether. Samsung is still suing Apple over (FRAND) patents. It has simply withdrawn its request for an injunction.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

Exactly. He strikes me as a very arrogant person, presuming to know the law better than lawyers/judges, and assuming the role of leader in deliberations, misleading the jury into thinking that prior art didn't apply because "it does not run on the same hardware". I do not presume to know whether this is basis for mistrial, but it's certainly wrong.

Certain element of pot and kettle here unless you can confirm you are a senior counsel or appellate court judge...
If the judge has decided it doesn't need a new case then I'll take the judge's view until or unless reversed by a higher court...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by elcreative

If the judge has decided it doesn't need a new case then I'll take the judge's view until or unless reversed by a higher court...

The judge cited chapter and verse of the guidelines; Basically she said it was Samsung's job to vet the potential jurors and that the same way they found out after the fact was the way they should have found out *before* the trial.
Appeals courts do not generally overturn civil court cases because the plaintif's counsel did not do their job diligently. Certainly not in a duel of deep pockets vs deep pockets.
Time for both sides to call a truce so they can both declare victory.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by afv011

Exactly. He strikes me as a very arrogant person, presuming to know the law better than lawyers/judges, and assuming the role of leader in deliberations, misleading the jury into thinking that prior art didn't apply because "it does not run on the same hardware". I do not presume to know whether this is basis for mistrial, but it's certainly wrong.

In the US, jurors aren't required to know the law or even act in accordance with it. The jurors are above the law since they don't have to state their reasons for their verdicts. The jury selection phase often takes longer than the entire trial because it may be the most important part.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Certain element of pot and kettle here unless you can confirm you are a senior counsel or appellate court judge...
If the judge has decided it doesn't need a new case then I'll take the judge's view until or unless reversed by a higher court...

Not at all, did you miss the "I do not presume to know the law" part???

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The judge cited chapter and verse of the guidelines; Basically she said it was Samsung's job to vet the potential jurors and that the same way they found out after the fact was the way they should have found out *before* the trial.
Appeals courts do not generally overturn civil court cases because the plaintif's counsel did not do their job diligently. Certainly not in a duel of deep pockets vs deep pockets.
Time for both sides to call a truce so they can both declare victory.

But vetting the jurors is still based on their answers. Should Samsung have assumed that the juror didn't tell the truth about having been involved in a lawsuit?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

Not at all, did you miss the "I do not presume to know the law" part???

Not at all, I read, "I do not presume to know whether this is basis for mistrial, but it's certainly wrong." from you which doesn't mention law merely whether it may be the basis for mistrial when the judge has already said that it wasn't the basis for mistrial followed by your comment that it was wrong... this seems to be you putting your opinion ahead of the trial judge... this makes my comment perfectly applicable...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Not at all, I read, "I do not presume to know whether this is basis for mistrial, but it's certainly wrong." from you which doesn't mention law merely whether it may be the basis for mistrial when the judge has already said that it wasn't the basis for mistrial followed by your comment that it was wrong... this seems to be you putting your opinion ahead of the trial judge... this makes my comment perfectly applicable...

Please read what I said. I said that I do not know whether it is the basis for mistrial (which means I do not presume to know the law), but that misleading the jury with false information (i.e., telling them that prior art does not apply because it does not run on the same hardware) is wrong. You might think that misleading the jury is fair game, and good for you, but it's not my opinion. The fact that, in my opinion, is wrong does not mean that it is against the law, or any basis for mistrial.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But vetting the jurors is still based on their answers. Should Samsung have assumed that the juror didn't tell the truth about having been involved in a lawsuit?

Would you please post the transcript of this juror's responses during voir-dire?

I am hearing an awful lot about not telling the truth without anything to back it up.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Would you please post the transcript of this juror's responses during voir-dire?

I am hearing an awful lot about not telling the truth without anything to back it up.

Well, PCWorld's article says:

Neither party has conclusively shown whether Hogan intentionally concealed his lawsuit with Seagate, or whether he merely forgot to mention it when asked by the court whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit,

...and I've italicized what I believe is the relevant part. Having served on juries, you're always asked about prior litigious experience for a civil jury and criminal experience if it is a criminal trial. Always. This guy didn't just forget being a party to some other guy's lawsuit, or being a witness--he was sued by his own former employer. I don't think you "forget" that. That's bollox.

I suspect that Samsung actually still has a reasonable case to make that they had no reason to pursue the question in voir dire, as the negative answer meant that they couldn't know what they couldn't know. It would be negligent voir dire, indeed, if he had said "yes," and they didn't pursue that; but the reasonable man doesn't automatically infer that every juror who answers "no" is lying. And I think there's a reasonable case that he concealed it deliberately, all things considered. How can you "forget" that you've been sued by your employer? Or that you've been in bankruptcy court, as a bankrupt? Am I the only one (who, by the way, couldn't care less about the argument on the table about whether Android or Apple is Ruler of the World) who finds that slightly unbelievable?

It's the District Court. I'm sure we'll hear about it again. ;-)

Hitch

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Hitch

...

It's the District Court. I'm sure we'll hear about it again. ;-)

Hitch

Yep, hope so! Because what happened here was pure and simple - wrong!

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

Please read what I said. I said that I do not know whether it is the basis for mistrial (which means I do not presume to know the law), but that misleading the jury with false information (i.e., telling them that prior art does not apply because it does not run on the same hardware) is wrong. You might think that misleading the jury is fair game, and good for you, but it's not my opinion. The fact that, in my opinion, is wrong does not mean that it is against the law, or any basis for mistrial.

I have no thoughts that misleading anyone is good form but I thought we were discussing law and a case, not you putting words in my mouth (and I obviously made a mistake in believing your words as clearly written)... a case where the judge has found that there are no grounds for a retrial concerning whatever the jury foreman did... all the rest of it is based on he said/ she said, whatever... the relevant thing is that the judge is satisfied and that's basically that unless a higher court rules otherwise...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Am I the only one (who, by the way, couldn't care less about the argument on the table about whether Android or Apple is Ruler of the World) who finds that slightly unbelievable?

Nope, you're not the only one.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I obviously made a mistake...

Yes, indeed you did. I never said that the judge was wrong to dismiss the appeal from Samsung for a mistrial, I said that the jury lead appeared arrogant to me and that it was wrong of him to give false information to the jury regarding prior art.