back to article Samsung claims Apple jury foreman LIED to get REVENGE

Samsung has filed a new, unredacted version of its motion requesting a new trial in its $1bn patent dispute with Apple, revealing allegations that the jury foreman in the original trial engaged in serious misconduct that prejudiced the verdict. Attorneys for the South Korean mobile maker originally filed the motion in …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. LarsG
    Meh

    Must

    Have looked at him in a funny way!

  2. Aqua Marina
    Pint

    Monsieur, le chèque s'il vous plaît!

    If it turns out that he is responsible, send him the bill for all the costs of the original trial, plus the full costs for a retrial!

    Dunno about the US, but in the UK you can't go bankrupt twice!

    1. asdf

      Re: Monsieur, le chèque s'il vous plaît!

      >Dunno about the US, but in the UK you can't go bankrupt twice!

      I think you can but only like once every ten years or so. Hey that explains why Trump goes bankrupt about once a decade (working towards his fourth).

      1. asdf
        FAIL

        Re: Monsieur, le chèque s'il vous plaît!

        My bad 8 years on a Chapter 7.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Bill Neal
      Unhappy

      Re: Monsieur, le chèque s'il vous plaît!

      There is no limit on the number of bankruptcies you can file in the US that I know of. It is common for individuals to claim more than once. It may also seem strange to many other countries that in the US the loser court is rarely obligated to pay legal fees. These and other issues keep our courts very busy.

      1. Bill Neal

        Re: Monsieur, le chèque s'il vous plaît!

        I meant to say "the loser court is rarely obligated to pay the opposing party's legal fees"

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Monsieur, le chèque s'il vous plaît!

      perhaps try: l'addition s'il vous plait.

  3. Ben Tasker Silver badge

    instructions that Samsung claims were "incorrect and extraneous" and "had no place in the jury room."

    And Samsung would be right.

    In another interview Hogan says that he believes that had he not been there, the deliberations would have taken longer and likely involved a lot of questions being referred to the judge. This, of course, being the way it's supposed to happen. What Hogan did was act as an expert witness in the Jury room, and it's not something that's permitted.

    Take the source code for example, in an interview, Hogan stated that he was able to read it and so translated it to the rest of the Jury. What should have happened, is realising they couldn't understand it, they should either have asked the Judge for direction or simply dis-regarded it.

    The thing that's funny about all this though, is it would never have happened in the UK. Or more accurately, would never have come to light, because the Jury aren't allowed to discuss deliberations at all. So, no media interviews for a start.

    It's those media interviews combined with Hogan's apparent love of his own voice that have given Samsung the ammo for this motion. Had he stayed quiet, large parts of the issue would never have come to light. It's doubtful a lawyer would discuss jurors by name with his spouse, so I suspect it's the media coverage of Hogan (who's going to forget a name like Velvin Hogan?) that triggered a memory.

    All in all, it's a bit of a fucker. On the face of it, this guy seems to have unfairly influenced (and I'm not speculating on his reasoning) what was touted as the most important patent case to date, and as a result that ruling is going to be viewed as a complete sham.

    So not only as he possibly led the Jury in to deciding in a way that they may not have done beforehand, but there's now the delay and expense of a re-trial on the horizon.

    Whilst the Judge could dig deeper in, I suspect she won't. Judge's often take the path of least resistance, if it looks like there's a chance a retrial might be needed anyway, she'll probably take the issues with Voire Dire as evidence enough.

    Apple won't be happy, Samsung clearly aren't, the only ones who stand to benefit (as usual) are the lawyers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Apple won't be happy, Samsung clearly aren't, the only ones who stand to benefit (as usual) are the lawyers."

      This is true, I just hope this is getting enough limelight in the US for their citizens to realise how absurd software patents really are.

      I realise I'm dreaming here.

      1. Eddy Ito

        "realise how absurd software patents really are."

        The sad part is most folks won't understand and therefore won't care one way or another. It will be a classic case where the eyes glaze over and the words just run into one another until it sounds a bit like a distant passing train.

      2. Thorne

        They should stick the retrial on Judge Judy. I'd pay to watch Judge Judy verbally bitchslap both Apple and Samsung

      3. mhenriday
        Pint

        «I just hope this is getting enough limelight in the US

        for their citizens to realise how absurd software patents really are.» Yes, indeed ! And if they want more empirically-based information on what patents are doing to research and innovation, they might do well to read the aptly titled Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis working paper, The Case against Patents, by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, professors at Washington University in St. Louis. As noted there :

        «In the long run, though, even the positive partial equilibrium effect [of increasing to the monopolistic level the profits of the successful innovator] may be more apparent than real: the existence of a large number of monopolies due to past patent grants reduces the incentives for innovation as current innovators are subject to constant legal action and licensing demands from earlier patent holders.»

        But of course, the Reg's «executive editor», who knows so much more about this sort of thing than anyone else, living or dead, would, on the basis of his vast experience, dismiss this analysis as the product of know-nothing «freetards»....

        Henri

    2. Paul Shirley

      Somewhere in one of the interviews Hogan gave he claims to have thought the jury were heading in Samsungs favour - implying that only changed when he had his 'a-ha' moment and led them over to Apples side.

      That's very credible, while the jury ruled for Apple on the software patents, they ruled against Apples design patents - Hogan couldn't drown them in bullshit on something so simple.

      Hogan is probably now #2 on Apples hit list after Google. He just sank their whole campaign. What they won won't survive the next trial, what they really needed to win (the design patents) they lost and in a retrial Koh will struggle to keep out prior art again - so they stay lost. And worst of all, there will be no product ban in place for the 2 years it takes getting to retrial and certainly no chance of a rolling ban with new products waved onto it by a protectionist judge.

      Meanwhile Google are busy compiling the mother of all prior art databases...

      1. Mage Silver badge
        Coat

        Meanwhile Google are busy compiling the mother of all prior art databases...

        Don't they have some relationship with a search engine to help them?

        I think they may have scanned a few books too.

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: Meanwhile Google are busy compiling the mother of all prior art databases...

          "Don't they have some relationship with a search engine to help them?"

          The most important thing is they went public with the project and invited anyone to join in. The world isn't all searchable online yet.

          I'm still occasionally trying to track down a future pocket PC mockup printed in a UK computing mag around the early 90's that covers everything Apple are currently claiming to own. The slab shape, the rounded corners, grid of icons, apps, touch screen, *built in phone* etc. Only differences were zero hard buttons and a full surface display... both of which Apple will attempt to claim for it's own before long! Can't find it anywhere online and I'm gradually working through decades of paper in case I kept that issue.

    3. ratfox

      "Apple won't be happy, Samsung clearly aren't"

      I suspect Samsung is dancing with glee at the possibility of a retrial.

  4. Rampant Spaniel

    If there is one thing that upsets a judge more than anything else it is bringing the legal system into disrepute. If this guy did lie, did mislead the jury etc then I would not like to be in his shoes.

    Judges, quite rightly, believe it is imperative to maintain the integrity of the courts. Apple and Samsung deserve another trial if the allegations are true, this muppet should pay for it.

    1. CABVolunteer

      If there is one thing that upsets a judge.....

      It's having the finger of blame pointing at them!

      If you read the transcript of the questioning of the prospective jurors by the judge, you'll see that whilst she explores the one case that Hogan does reveal, she immediately moves on without checking "And were there any other lawsuits you've been involved in?". Hogan may defend his apparent lack of candour by claiming that he wasn't given the opportunity to reveal the earlier cases.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If there is one thing that upsets a judge.....

        Hogan has already attempted to defend his lack of candour by claiming the Judge only asked for cases in the last ten years. The transcript not only shows this isn't case, it has an answer from a different juror detailing a case in 1998.

      2. Rampant Spaniel

        Re: If there is one thing that upsets a judge.....

        Sorry I didn't get chance to read the transcript :-) I was boarding a plane and didn't fancy the rubber gloving, words with friends style ;-) I get the feeling that lawyers everywhere will be nursing a semi in anticipation of all the fees resulting from this!

  5. David Webb

    You missed the comment where the bloke said "Samsung wanted me on the jury, duh, they wanted me there in case they lost so they would have reason to mistrial!".... guys a bit of a tool.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Link please?

      1. stanimir

        Linky

        The link is in the article itself, check groklaw.net

  6. Hooksie

    I read that book

    It was by John Grisham and it was called The Runaway Jury but it was about tobacco. Makes sense of the quick verdict, everyone probably didn't care and wanted to go home, he gave them a reason to think they were doing the right thing. Yet more evidence that in some cases a jury simply isn't the best way to decide guilt.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I read that book

      A jury trial is a bit of a nonsense in this sort of case. They're hardly peers of the global mega corps and it's just the sort of delicate far reaching decision you want entrusted to a panel of unbiased judges who are capable of reasoning for themselves.

      I think if anyone has to foot the bill for a retrial it should be the court for not ascertaining the guy's background and putting forward a jury incapable of making a just decision.

      1. Thorne

        Re: I read that book

        "unbiased judges who are capable of reasoning for themselves."

        Is there such a thing?

        1. KjetilS

          Re: I read that book

          Is there such a thing?

          Richard Posner, probably

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I read that book

      a trial isn't really to find the truth - it's to settle disputes...as i read (errm, somewhere) the "legal truth" is just a byproduct of the settlement mechanism....

  7. stanimir
    Go

    old news

    The story is few days old but the reporting from El Reg is excellent.

    The entire trial looked like a farce but not it's beyond sham. It puzzles me how the foreman decided to lie about the question, adding the "whole ten years" when a transcript is readily available. The dude likes to be in the limelight and that's all?

    1. MrT
      Childcatcher

      I hope he realises...

      ... that dropping the soap would be a bad idea. But perhaps the lightbulb moment could be arranged to arrive just after he tries to pick it up, for that full "look what you did to this trial" experience.

      Oh, sorry. Just realising that I'm cross-posting this from an article in summer 2013, after the judge arranges new state-funded accommodation for him.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fandroids just can't accept their favourite phones are iphone wanna-bes and their makers lack the innovation that apple has in designing great products.

    But I guess if you are forced to buy a cheap iphone clone that is plagued with malware and sends off too much personal info to an advertising company then you'd want it to look nice.

    1. James Hughes 1

      What a ridiculous post. This article is about a possible mistrial in a patent case, and nothing to do with whether one phone is 'better' than another. But hey ho, given the reduction in comprehension shown by many register posters over the last couple of years, it's hard to be surprised.

      1. Ben Tasker Silver badge
        Joke

        reduction in comprehension

        inability to understand

        Sorry, just making sure they can comprehend your post!

    2. Da Weezil
      WTF?

      Asshat

      You really should pull you head out of that warm dark place. Android owners choose 'Droid for a number of reasons - None of which relate dircetly to this story - heres a clue - Get someone who is all grown up to sit you on their knee and read it with you - and maybe help you understand some of those bigger words.

      You really are a coward - but maybe what we really need is an "Anonymous Troll" User mask as well, it would describe posts like this so much better!

      1. Rob
        Happy

        Re: Asshat (Fix required)

        (Fix required) "...but maybe what we really need is an "Anonymous Tool"

        No worries, glad I could help ;-)

    3. P Saunders

      make a stupid, irrelevant statement

      and hide behind anonymity. You, sir, are a douche bag.

    4. tom dial Silver badge
      Stop

      Apple is not an innovator. It is a good integrator of available technology and an outstanding polisher of the products they develop. It remains to be seen how long this survives the passing of Steve Jobs, who by all reports was the central driver in this.

      Let the downvoting begin.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "... and an outstanding polisher of the productsturds they develop."

        Now they've lost the goose that lays the golden egg.

    5. Naughtyhorse

      hmm, what you have there is a wit of the purest fuck!

  9. jai

    Seagate?

    But... Apple make use of Seagate drives as well? I don't see how, if the foreman is prejudiced against Seagate, he would have a bias either way in the trial as both companies work with his former employer.

    This smacks of Samsung clutching at straws. Further evidence that these lawsuits will never, ever end. Future generations in 200 years will still be contesting the results and holding appeals and retrials without any knowledge of why...

    (there's a cherry thought to get your Friday morning started :) )

    1. Bored_Stupid

      Re: Seagate?

      > This smacks of Samsung clutching at straws

      Not really. It strikes me as more of a lever to open things up so that their real beef can get heard.

      But even if you are right, enough straws eventually break the camel's back.

    2. Ally 1

      Re: Seagate?

      Apple also use Samsung chips, and chips fabbed by Samsung.

      Anyways did you miss the big bit about Samsung being the major shareholder in Seagate?

    3. Tom 13

      Re: Seagate?

      Whether he's got a grudge against Seagate or not isn't the only point of the question. The question is raised to determine who has a potential bias. If he's been in a patent suit before as either plaintiff or defendant, he's likely to be biased, and as such, excluded by one side or the other from the jury pool with cause*. When he didn't truthfully and fully answer the question from the judge he opened the pathway for Samsung to rightly request a new trial. What, by his own admission, he did in the jury room only further strengthens Samsung's plea that they be given a new trial.

      *Sometime it may take them a while. I've only ever been called for one jury pool. One of the guys who was called should have been dismissed by the judge after about the 4th question (real estate case, he knew multiple realtors including some tangentially involved in the trial, was constantly giving police statements because he was an EMT and EMTs wind up doing a lot of that, etc. etc. etc.), but was actually called to be seated before the lawyers realized what had happened. Then one of them raised an issue and he was removed from the pool. I'm guessing both sides assumed the other was going to disqualify him and as a result neither did until the very end. Oh and I think the judge asked the questions the same way Koh did: no time frame for when you knew/did something that potentially raised an issue.

    4. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Seagate?

      The juror's motivation is not, in the end, at all important. The jury room behavior he and others described, however motivated, was over the limits.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seagate?

      what I don't understand is that it seems pretty simple for samsung to point out that he fed incorrect assumptions to the jury , but rather than going after his recent actions/statements they're targeting his past.

      all I can hope for is that samsung's lawyers know what they're doing and this is the best option they have, but honestly I have a tough time believing that he's held a 15+ year grudge against seagate that he extended to samsung when they acquired seagate stock.

  10. h4rm0ny

    How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

    I always thought a jury was drawn from the public in some semi-random way, but just the candidacy of Hogan to the jury (before you even get to approval or rejection) tells me that this is not the case. How is it that someone with that background happens to end up on a jury in the biggest patent trials yet?

    1. Andrew Moore

      Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

      First thing that came to my mind too...

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

      What, you're surprised that a trial in an area well supplied with tech companies ends up with people who've worked for tech companies on the jury?

      1. Natalie Gritpants Silver badge

        Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

        And, that most people still working in that area who haven't made enough money to leave or get excused from jury service probably feel they have been screwed by one or more large corporations.

    3. Displacement Activity
      Thumb Down

      Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

      I was astonished when I saw an interview with Hogan right after the trial. He was billed as the CTO of some hi-tech Californian outfit (I don't think he actually is the CTO, though - not sure), and as the jury foreman. WTF? The CTO of a California company is the foreman in a case where another hi-tech California company is attempting to ban Korean imports? Who in their right mind is going to buy that?

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

        Well I'm the CTO of a company in England, and I was foreman of a jury.

        Admittedly it was a crappy little GBH case (violent club bouncers), and I'm CTO in the sense that we don't have any proper job titles, have 6 employees, and I'm the only one who knows how to make computer say yes. Sometimes...

        1. Bod

          Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

          Usually if you're a CTO/CEO/Managing Director or whatever you like to call yourself, you generally can get a good excuse to get out of Jury service in the UK.

          Few actually relish the opportunity to do it, unless they have a motive of their own.

          1. Rakkor
            Happy

            Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

            I spent three weeks at the Old Bailey and loved it - late starts, 4 hour days, - what's not to like - If my name pops up again I won't be trying to dodge it, quite the opposite.

          2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

            Usually if you're a CTO/CEO/Managing Director or whatever you like to call yourself, you generally can get a good excuse to get out of Jury service in the UK.

            Few actually relish the opportunity to do it, unless they have a motive of their own.

            Some of us still regard it as our civic duty. I certainly hope if I ever have to face a jury as defendant or plaintiff, it's not entirely composed of people who couldn't avoid service.

            Of course, excluding those who are too selfish to accept their responsibilities as citizens from the jury pool makes a certain amount of sense too.

            (And for the record, yes, I've been called a few times, and served once. As foreman. And while I've never had a C-level title, I've worked for small startups of the sort mentioned upthread, where everyone participates in the executive decision-making.)

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

          > ... and I'm the only one who knows how to make computer say yes.

          ... and I'm the only one who knows how to make computer say yes TRUE.

          Fixed it for you

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

            TRUE is easy; it takes a CTO to write

            sub yes_or_no($)

            {

            return ($_[0])?"yes":"no";

            }

      2. Tom 13

        Re: CTO of some hi-tech Californian outfit

        you can't swing a live-dead cat in Silicon valley without hitting a CTO.

        Whether or not he's a CTO worth talking to is another story.

        1. Naughtyhorse

          Re: CTO of some hi-tech Californian outfit

          and whether you want to deal with all the 'assault with a deadly feline' issues is an appendix to that other story

    4. Tom 13

      Re: How did he end up being a candidate for the jury?

      Juries pools are drawn randomly - typically the phone book, voter registration polls, or some such. Where it goes from there is anybody's guess. The judge questions the potential jurors just like in this case. The expectation is that everyone answers truthfully, but there's no cross examination and no investigation. The lawyers are allowed to strike potential jurors, sometimes with cause a some number without. When they think all bias has been removed they ask for hardships depending on the length of the trial. When they finally get to the potential pool, the jurors are still chose randomly. If anyone in the process acts with malice, the whole system is subject to collapse. I'd classify misleading/lying to the judge as malice.

  11. Mage Silver badge

    Peers ...

    So maybe a jury of reps from Intel, Microsoft, Nokia, Qualcomm, ARM, Huewei, Sony, Ericsson etc?

    :-D

    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson
      Joke

      Re: Peers ...

      A jury of pears would have been an improvement over a jury headed by someone who has such difficulty telling the truth

      Hogan really missed his true calling, he should have become a politician

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Peers ...

        Or a lawyer...

      2. Alister

        Re: Peers ...

        >> A jury of pears

        Quite apt for a case involving Apple.

        1. Severen
          Go

          Re: Peers ...

          >> A jury of pears

          >> Quite apt for a case involving Apple.

          I'm guessing the trial didn't take place on the ground floor, then?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    mistrial

    The fact that a juror had a lawsuit with Seagate, of which Samsung is a major shareholder (even if he claims he didn't know this) is cause enough for a mistrial. The fact that this guy is foreman of the jury, and has openly claimed to be influential in convincing the others to vote his way only reinforces this.

    I hope Apple get stuck in another few years of legal wrangling, Samsung get to sell their products, consumers get to buy what they want to buy and then a proper jury with a proper judge throws this frivolous case out.

    1. LPF
      FAIL

      Re: mistrial

      So what your saying is that becuase this man was in a court case with a another company nearly 17 years ago, he held a grudge against samsung becuase they were a shareholder in segate? GTFO

  13. The Axe
    Facepalm

    Career?

    "he later called it "the high spot of [his] career" and even his life"

    When does someone point to a bit of jury duty and say that it is a high spot their career unless they see it as part of their job - in other words, he saw it as his role to tell the jury what to do.

    <--- Is what he probably is doing at the moment.

    1. DaeDaLuS_015
      FAIL

      Re: Career?

      Something he probably won't have in the future by the looks of things!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Career?

      "he later called it "the high spot of [his] career" and even his life"

      Sounds like the sort of thing people who camp ouside Apple Stores to be first in the queue for the launch of the latest iThingy say

  14. FuzzyTheBear
    Coat

    On jury duty. For those who have been there .

    A good jury is deciding of the facts of an affair. To do so , with fairness to both parties in presence is extremely hard. A good decision is one where we can take our own views , our own preconceived ideas , and toss them out the door. It takes time to reach a good decision , an honesty beyond the usual. We have to deal with our emotions then shove em out the equation . A good jury will understand what i'm talking about. Specially in criminal trials . We live through everything , even sympathy for an accused. Go through phases of incredible confusion. But once we go through the cleansing of our ideas , our personal feelings , even revenge , or sympathy for the victim's family , hatred towards the accused , we find for a brief period of time what justice truly is in a case. To be a jury is an honor and a privilege . A many botch the job and leave doors opened for appeal. But a conscious jury will leave no gaps , no flaws in their reasoning. We will find what justice truly is in a case . It was a very bad call from that jury.

    Indeed Samsung is more than owed a new trial.

    ftb

    ( The decision i had to take was at a gory , terrible murder trial. We got the guy in the slammer for life.

    And frankly if it was to be redone, none of us would go another way. There was no appeal .)

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Software patent

    Hogan also has a 2002 software patent for video compression.

    From the transcript (courtesy of Groklaw):

    THE COURT: Okay. And do you have any patent applications pending now?.... Let's go to Mr. Hogan. You had some?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Excuse me. In 2002, I filed for a patent in video compression software, and in 2008, the patent was issued to me. And in 2008 I filed a follow-on patent in more detail and that is currently pending.

    THE COURT: I see. Okay. All right....

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Court appointed overseer?

    Although a little difficult to get right, maybe a silent, independent court appointed oversee should be present in jury deliberations just to make sure that no undue influence or bullying of the jury is taking place and that everything is going above board.

    They wouldn't be allowed to say anything or answer any questions just be allowed to privately raise concerns with the judge or, halt jury deliberations for a short period if there seemed that instructions and procedures were not being followed correctly.

    The problem with a jury foreman, is that he can sometimes get a power trip and decide to act like the manager of the jury telling them what to do.

  17. Sam Liddicott

    10 years?

    Where did Hogan get the 10 year idea from? Had someone been talking to him before hand?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Career move?

    Clarifying:

    a) 29 years in IT (from tape ape to Technical Lead - got there the hard way)

    b) Telecoms related

    c) *nix user/admin/architect. (Yes, linux is in that stack, but not the only object there)

    d) Anon because of my employment.

    Tossing the players and the patent issue out the window, V Hogan should be held liable for *any* ensuing legal wrangles that fall out from the Apple/Samsung trial simply for spouting his fool mouth off.

    The only possible reason for this person to be spouting off like this is to create his own persona on the open market and possibly become a "Celebrity" commentator/blogger/media mouth piece.

    Given the two above points, the case will have to be overhauled. His position as Jury Foreman put him in a specific moral and legal place, which he's clearly stepped out side of since the trial ended.

    I made the fool mistake of listening to one of his interviews. I really don't see a spark of 'bright' in his discourse on the issue, rather I get the impression that he's a paper tiger and somewhat narrow minded.

    (Please note that last line is purely my opinion from a phone interview recording about 6 minutes long, I could be completely off base.)

    Personally, I suspect that the best method to resolve the insanity of these trials is to have a preliminary review of the presentable evidence by a panel of experts. These folks will be able to comment on relevance, prior art, technical correctness and things of this nature. The **judge** then gets to ask this panel if any of the objects should be permitted at trial. Its still up to the judge, but at least then the judge has experts for advice. The single greatest roadblock to this will be finding relatively impartial members of the review committee.

    (Note - I don't object to patents in principle, but I'm quite certain that patent law can be done a HELL of a lot better than it is now, the essential principle is good, but nowadays it appears that there is something slimy and somewhat stinky flowing through the process)

  19. NO further action is required
    Coat

    Copyright OK Patent No-Ok

    Wrong place to post this but, why aren't patents limited in time to 5-years? I know that copyright is much, much longer. After all who still owns the patent for the ball bearing (please don't tell me), and therefore a slice of every modern wheel ever produced?

    If a company cannot recoup it's development costs within 5-years then what they have developed is not that revolutionary. The only Apple I desired was a 400, maybe an 800 cannot remember now.

    Anyhow the Next New World Order, Apple led or not should take care of this.

    Wine in the afternoon, what a wonderful thing!

    No Flames please, this is a one-off opinion to get the few, that can, thinking.

    1. Rob Crawford

      Re: Copyright OK Patent No-Ok

      Apart from roller bearings, needle bearings and a multitude of other friction reducing methods.

      Also ball bearings have been around for a considerable period (though Conrad or caged bearings to which you may be alluding where 20th century creations)

      I have no problems with patents, providing they are applied properly, I mean patenting a scrolling element which 'bounces' when the limit has been reached. That's a bit of fucking eye candy not an essential piece of technology.

  20. NO further action is required
    Black Helicopters

    NO further action is required

    Maybe that was an Atari 400/800 and not an Apple I/II

    Ball Bearings

  21. DuTchie

    Check out his interview to the BBC, he clearly has no clue about prior art. He thinks a patent is not invalidated by prior art because the prior software cannot run on the same processor! And this is what he told the other jury members.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425051

    And most damning: Q: "Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?" A: "I think so. But let's not say me specifically. "

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I smell desparation Samsung - pay up and move on.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think he's playing up his own importance and Samsung are making a mountain out of a mole hill - this issue with Samsung was nearly 20 years ago and it's only that Samsung then went on to buy them. It's like saying he would not buy almost any computer as it may include a Samsung chip / component.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Perhaps you are right, perhaps not. WE can't know, and that is why the verdict is arguably worthless and needs a redo. The issue is not whether the motivation was an ancient lawsuit, a patent holder's pro-patent bias, or maybe just an irrepressible need to feel important. The problem is the publicly stated misbehavior during deliberations.

    2. Naughtyhorse

      c'mon, the guy is a nutjob - of course he carries a grudge. Any _normal_ person would have recused themselves at the first opportunity. In the UK it's made abundantly clear, if you have any connection to or strong feelings about a case, you cant be on the jury. And if you are on the jury you _certainly_ don't swan around using the bigness of your own dick to tell everyone else how to think.

      he's a spiteful, spineless, grudge carrying fuckwit! Who ultimately snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when he got his petty revenge, but couldn't keep his big fucking mouth shut about it!

      I hope the judge throws the book at him.

      <ps i have not been involved in any disputes with this bloke.... well not in the last ten years at least>

  24. dssf

    More on the debacle: “Will $1 bil. verdict for Apple hold?”

    http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/10/133_122388.html

    “Will $1 bil. verdict for Apple hold?”

    “Another lawyer, who requested anonymity due to client matters, said these new issues will be taken up by Samsung’s lawyers and “without a doubt” be used as leverage in a cross-licensing deal on the sidelines.

    “In the end, only the final verdict will have a huge impact but these bits of information that are constantly mentioned are probably being talked about by the lawyers of both firms,” he said.

    He also pointed out that filings by both parties have now gone public, which shows how some of the claims made by Apple’s lawyers were made out of context. “It shows that there never was a direct order from Samsung to its employees to copy the iPhone among some new facts that puts Samsung in a more favorable light,” he said.

    Spokesmen from both firms declined to comment on the matter.”

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022