back to article Judge: There'll be no US Samsung ban, BUT no new trial with Apple either

Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the US, but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Flawless101
    Stop

    Trying to draw a line under the issue?

    Sounds like she just wants the issue put to bed, and never brought up again. Ever.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Trollface

      Never brought up again. Ever.

      Sound like the final line the good-looking protagonist utters at the end of a hollywood slasher/horror movie.

      You know there will be a Part II.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trying to draw a line under the issue?

      PAY UP SAMSUNG and hopefully we can move on.

      1. Peter 48

        Re: Trying to draw a line under the issue?

        Still won't happen, Samsung still have the option to appeal the original case, and they have a very strong case in their favour for the appeal.

      2. Rod Ramrod

        PAY UP SAMSUNG Re: Trying to draw a line under the issue?

        Dunno mate, it'll likely be a four ciggy drive up that road.

    3. Rampant Spaniel

      Re: Trying to draw a line under the issue?

      certainly does sound that way. I have no beef with either company but I'm not entirely happy with letting the judgement stand given the very real possibility the foreman was biased. I think it undermines the credibility of the judgement and if left alone it undermines the court. Normally judges would come down on the juror like a ton of bricks for harming the court.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Trying to draw a line under the issue?

        The blinding obvious thing is IF the judge genuinely though he was biased she would have ruled in favour of a retrial - yet all the Samsung zealots still want to cling on to it.

        1. Rampant Spaniel

          @ac 17:53

          Not a samsung zealot, I don't care which way the judgement went other than it should be fair. The judge issued an odd statement, she basically said yeah there are potential issues but you should have found out about them before. This is fine up to a point, yes samsung should have but when he was asked in court about lawsuits he avoided answering fully so I do have some sympathy for samsungs position. The jurors comments afterwards about his actions in the jury room also undermine the validity of the judgement. Let me be clear, I do not care if samsung win or lose at a retrial or if the judgement is increased or decreased. I do care that a court is standing by a judgement that seems unsound based on the actions of a juror with a grudge. Courts have a hell of a lot of power, as do juries, they need to be beyond reproach. Normally judges go apeshit over situations where a juror undermines the court. The judge didn't say he didn't she said it was up to you to spot it earlier. I found that pretty odd, but she seems pissed off at the whole thing and wants to move on already.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ac 17:53

            Sansungs position was, we are happy with the jury till they ruled against us, now that we lost we will will find any shit to say it's unfair, for instace someone in the jury knew the husband of a Samsung lawyer 16 years ago.

            Samsung knew about the conection before the trial but they didn't bother to object, meaning they were gaming the system to use him as an excuse for a retrial incase they lost. As for undermining the validity, the judge disagrees with you as would any normal person, You say the forman has a grudge against the wife of the husband who was a samsung lawyer (neither of which worked for Samsung 16 years ago), then prove it otherwise yor just another Samsung sock puppet.

            1. Rampant Spaniel

              Relax a second, fwiw I thought the verdict was right but I thought the damages were high. Lay off the insults, nobody is slinging them at you :-)

              What I am saying is that I found it odd that the judge said no retrial because you had your chance to find out before. She never said there wasn't an issue, she just said you should have raised it before. The problem being he was asked and worded his answer carefully to avoid telling them about the previous lawsuit. My concern isn't for Samsung or Apple, my concern is that the judge is basically saying yeah shit happens, live with it which isn't how the law works. Yes they should have found out, but the situation does colour the result somewhat which isn't a great situation. Samsung seriously needs to sack its council, especially if they appeal.

              The actual issue with the foreman (as you seem to have misunderstood) was simply that seagate (samsung owns\owned approx 10% of seagate) sued the foreman in '93 over an unpaid loan and he was forced to declare himself bankrupt. Whilst it isn't proof in itself he had a grudge, the fact he worded his response carefully makes me suspicious.

        2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
          Coat

          Re: Trying to draw a line under the issue?

          @AC 17:53

          The blinding obvious thing is IF the judge genuinely though he was biased she would have ruled in favour of a retrial

          You seem a bit confused AC, the Judge/Court/legal process is not about justice, it's about the practice of law.

          What the Judge said was the Samsung had the opportunity to question Hogan during the jury selection and having failed to reject him at that point that cannot now reject him after the fact.

          The judge did not say that Hogan was not biased.

          Mines the one with the pockets full of popcorn.

  2. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    My word...

    Fair and reasonable judgements coming down from a California court at long last? Wow...

    BTW, saw the Google Nexus 10 this morning. What a machine. If you are looking for the best Android tab on the market, start there. Better res than a iPad Retina to start.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: My word...

      If something is 'retina' already is there much point adding more pixels - guess samsung had to so they could say it's more - Apple do 10" so Samsung do 10.1 surprised Samsung do not do a 16.1Gb, 32.1Gb and 64.1Gb models as well.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hello fanboy, repeat after me

        There is no such thing as a 'retina' screen. It is useless marketing speak, it means nothing. No point in adding more pixels - bet you Apple do in the next couple of years and you will change your tune then. Wonder what they will call that? Beyond-retina?

        1. Eddy Ito

          Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me

          Not a very good fanboy at that. I mean if he's going to pick nits why not at least be honest and say Apple does 9.7?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me

          No there were no 'retina' type screens until Apple did it first.

          1. Mark .

            Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me

            "Retina" is a trademark - it makes as much sense as saying no one else does Pureview cameras. And talking of a "first" makes little sense, when resolution is a quantity with a large number of possibilities - it's not an either/or. (I suppose you could say "first to make a device with a particular resolution", but there are *many* such "firsts".)

            For years iphones had low resolution (my Nokia 5800 had 640x360, much higher than most phones of the time) - for some reason, this wasn't deemed a problem, until they made it their single advertising point. My Galaxy Nexus has a higher resolution than a "retina" iphone, and there are phones with higher resolution still. Many much cheaper Android tablets have higher resolution than an ipad mini.

            In conclusion, there is no clear winner at all as to who leads on high resolutions.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me

            Yup everything is obvious once Apple have done it.

          3. Eddy Ito

            @AC 16:19

            "No there were no 'retina' type screens until Apple did it first."

            I hate to break the news to you but Apple released the iPhone 4, its first 'retina' screen, in June 2010. That's a full three years after Toshiba released their Portege G900 with a 3" 800 x 480 display at 313 ppi. Of course you are free to claim that 'retina' only applies to 326 ppi or greater but that kind of kicks the iPad squarely in the nuts as it's only 264 ppi. Apple didn't do it first; the horror, the horror. No, they took the idea of high a pixel density from a phone running Windows Mobile 6 which likely explains why you never heard of it.

        3. philbo
          Happy

          Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me

          That raps really rather well.. well, for the first three lines (even if you kind of have to say "marketing" with two syllables):

          Hello, fanboy, repeat after me

          There is no such thing as a "retina" screen

          It is useless marketing-speak, it means nothing

          ..as for "beyond retina".. optical nerve?

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me

          Actually, although it is a marketing term, it does mean something. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ignorance....

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me

            We wait with bated breath for your enlightened definition.

      2. Mark .

        Re: My word...

        I agree there's no point in these super-high resolutions, but that goes for Apple too (I never understood where one is meant to get the media in such high resolutions, given that you can't even fit one Blu-Ray quality film on an entry level 16GB model, and most people won't have the mobile allowance to stream that). The point is that Apple made it their single marketing point, and Google/Samsung beat them at their own game - for those people who think "Retina" is important, the Nexus 10 beats it.

        For those of us who think it isn't important, it's not a consideration in the first place - and there are many other tablets to then consider.

        "Retina" is just a trademark. What the actual best resolution is is a matter of personal preference and needs.

        (I'm also amused that Samsung outdoing Apple is spun as being something to criticise Samsung over.)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: My word...

          Maybe you have heard of a thing called software? You see for those of us who use iPads to get thing done, it's the software (Apple speach apps) that is important (small business, 3 staff plus contractors). The display makes a huge difference in the usability. It's the difference between 'this is nice' and 'this is needed'. If you want a toy to watch video then get an android or fire or a good TV but if your putting your own cash down and your expecting the device to pay for itself, then it's a retina display iPad.

          Android tablets are consumer toys that geeks also like, of the people i know, a lot use android phones as well as blackberries (no one i know is going to upgrade) and iphones but no one uses Android tablets. It dosn't even come up in conversation anymore. Everyone uses Google to search but no one trust Google on tablets, we all know they don't give a fuck. Google has lost the business market by not caring, they assumed free matters, cheap matters, well in the toy world i guess thats true. But when the difference in the price of tablets is 1 maybe 2 days in a semi decent hotel (clean, quiet, comfotable), trust and commitmeant means a lot more and you don't get that with android tablets.

          PS This 'you can upgrade your OS yourself' really dosn't work, i and everyone i know's prefers 'we will do that for you, you spend your time on your business'.

          1. NB
            Boffin

            Re: My word...

            @AC 10:27

            Wow, that's an awful lot of kool-aid you've drunk.

            The answer to "It's the software" is very, very simple. Get a nexus device. They're cheaper than most of the competition (even the other android devices), they get all the software updates for Android and they outperform all of apples current offerings.

            The apps are there for getting damn near anything and everything done on them. I code, manage servers on the go and even DJ at nightclubs on my Nexus 7. I've used it to write reports, RPG campaigns (google docs+drive integration is awesome for that), I can write quick apps in html5 straight to dropbox or googledrive and quickly deploy them to webservers using sftp in the ES filemanager. All of this on a non-rooted device and by the way, speech recognition software is much, much better on Android and as for Siri? Check out Google Now sometime. And then weep at the ineptitude of Siri.

            Just sayin'.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: My word...

            how bizarre ... that the majority of the world think that the ipad is a toy and mostly use it to keep the kids and teenagers quiet. You clearly know a strange group of people.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: My word...

        Surprised Samsung did not call theirs the eyePhone or i.Phone or perhaps iPhone 5.1

  3. Jon Press

    "void dire"

    Rarely have I seen such a succinct summation of a legal case. Only missing a comma, I think.

    1. Simon Harris

      Re: "void dire"

      void dire ?

      Someone's fingers have been programmed too strongly to write C code!

    2. hplasm
      Happy

      Re: "void dire"

      Missing curly brackets more like...

  4. Richard 81

    Good

    They can sue each other for money if they must, since it largely seems to balance out, but full bans are bad for the consumer.

  5. Philip Lewis

    Rational decision

    As the commentards here have now found out, courts have law and precedent upon which to rely when informing judgement, and Samsung can't successfully claim mistrial because of that. And Apple have failed to lift the burden of proof necessary to win an injunction against sale.

    There you have it. A simple application of well established legal principles and practice.

    I assume Samsung now owe Apple a billion buckeroos

    1. wowfood

      Re: Rational decision

      A shame really. Although I agree that samsung did infringe on those patents (personally I don't believe some of them are valid but apparently that doesn't matter) I disagree with the amount. Especially when it comes down to a point of how much the patents are worth. If there were irreperable harm caused then I could possibly understand the amount, but as the judge said, it was more like medium harm.

      I hope samsung at least manage to appeal the amount even if they don't get a whole new case. 300mil would still seem more than a fair amount.

      1. what_fresh_hell_is_this?

        Re: Rational decision

        personally I don't believe some of them are valid but apparently that doesn't matter

        You are correct to say that your personal "what I reckon" view on validity was not considered to be important by the court.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Rational decision

      $1.05bn plus an adjustment from the judge of up to 3x I believe (and probably interest as well by now).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Rational decision

        >$1.05bn plus an adjustment from the judge of up to 3x I believe (and probably interest as well by now).

        Last month's 20% hike in Apple contract costs will more than cover it and Samsung's decision to cease production of Retina Displays may yet also 'bare' fruit next year....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Rational decision

          Did you stop to consider the 20% hike may have only been for one contract and secondly what if it is actually a quantity based price - i.e. Apple are buying substantially less of a component (as sourcing it elsewhere) so the price for the ones they are buying is a bit higher. Samsung have lost Apple as a customer for most things - if not now then in the near future so I suspect it's Samsung who will lose out long term.

          +20% of nothing is still nothing.

    3. Paul Shirley

      Re: abdication of making a decision

      *Koh* has refused them a new trial. *Koh* has refused Apple an injunction. It's a pattern, Koh doesn't seem to like taking any action and seems to have put more effort into coercing Apple&Samsung into discussion than anything else. Predictable on the basis this was always going to appeal but still lazy and dishonest.

      Now the appeal starts. That's the story here, a couple of years waiting on an appeal *with no Apple injunctions in force*. Apple must be spitting teeth right now, the win was the injunctions, to squash competition by lawsuit. Today's decision means Apple will struggle to get another injunction in an American court.

      Meanwhile Hogan's misbehaviour is successfully in the record for the appeal, as are the errors in the jury decision. For Samsung this is nowhere near over, for Apple being denied injunctions mean it is all but over.

      1. Simon Harris

        Re: abdication of making a decision

        It's a pattern, Koh doesn't seem to like taking any action and seems to have put more effort into coercing Apple&Samsung into discussion than anything else. Predictable on the basis this was always going to appeal but still lazy and dishonest.

        But ... Isn't trying to get people to talk to each other rather than fight it out a good thing?

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: abdication of making a decision

          Simon Harris: But ... Isn't trying to get people to talk to each other rather than fight it out a good thing?

          That only works if negotiating benefits both sides. It doesn't work here because Apple thought they could get injunctions to stick and never intended negotiating over that. If Samsung couldn't negotiate that away there was little point them talking either.

          What Koh persistently refused to accept was Apples plain language: that they weren't interested in licensing, just in removing Samsung from their market. There was never any talk to be had and Koh must have known that.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: abdication of making a decision

        Huh? Squash competition by banning old outdated models?

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: Huh? Squash competition by banning old outdated models?

          You Apply fanbois need to check in with HQ more often. You seem to have missed Apples attempt to add Android JellyBean to the Samsung case, which would have allowed bans on all new Samsung devices if allowed. Or the newer devices they did manage to get added.

          They did indeed only have bans on older devices but were trying for much, much more. Now they have nothing and little chance of ever getting a US ban again.

    4. Carl
      Stop

      Re: Rational decision

      Apparently.

      Except they will get a stay pending appeal.

      Samsung have been getting their ducks in a row for appeal, so expect that imminently.

      Once at appeal the judge will be less parochial/clueless than Koh and the jury (assuming there will be one - I doubt it) won't be poisoned by our good friend Velvin.

      In the meantime, they can still sell their wares and make $.

      So in that sense it's a win for Samsung.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Rational decision

      So many down votes for Philip Lewis for no apparent reason.

      There's a whole lotta fanboyism in this thread, and not of the Apple kind.

      Androids and Samsonites sobbing themselves to sleep tonight.

      1. Steve Knox

        Re: Rational decision

        So many down votes for Philip Lewis for no apparent reason.

        There's a whole lotta fanboyism in this thread, and not of the Apple kind.

        Apparently. That's a reason. Not a logical one, mind, but since when has logic shown face on these forums?

      2. Anal Leakage

        Re: Rational decision

        The Chaebol Defense Alliance clicks for justice!

      3. Mark .

        Re: Rational decision

        But that's just it, there are no "Samsonites".

        There are people who enjoy using particular products/platforms/etc, and in some cases they get quite fanatical about it. But people don't get fanatical about a _company_ - people don't treat this like football teams where you want one side to win, they don't care about the company success unless you're an employee or a shareholder.

        But Apple fans seem to be the exception. I love a good old which-product-is-best debate, but here it's like a tennis match where only one side is serving - rather than arguments about which product is best, it gets deflected with arguments of praise like "Look how much profit they make!", "Look how much valued they are by the stock market!" which leads to absurdities such as praising a company for having overpriced products, because high profit margins are good for the company (where as in any other debate, that would be a reason for consumers to criticise). I remember reading an article about the wonder of some Apple product, but it was only after a while that it hit me - not a single point of argument was about the product, but it was all about things being good from the company point of view, such as profits, shares, etc.

        No one is arguing for Samsung for the sake of it. Rather, people enjoy using Samsung products; and also, people dislike the market being stifled due to software and design patents, especially the ones in question here.

        1. Simon Harris
          Joke

          Re: Rational decision

          There are people who enjoy using particular products/platforms/etc, and in some cases they get quite fanatical about it. But people don't get fanatical about a _company_ - people don't treat this like football teams where you want one side to win, they don't care about the company success unless you're an employee or a shareholder.

          But Apple fans seem to be the exception. I love a good old which-product-is-best debate....

          The only way the battle could have been more fierce is if the iPad had a 6502 and Samsung had chosen the Z80!

        2. Observer1959

          Re: Rational decision

          Who else has been making the whole widget since day one? Apple makes the hardware and software. Everyone else until recently with Microsofts products made either hardware or software. This is what made Apple different and why the company has fans who talk about it. Android is fragmented because Google let it loose and everyone and their mother are making hardware for it. By the way I know Many Apple product users who say nothing about the company and only about its products. Try not to make Apple fanatics seem so different from the rest. All the fanatics on all side are just that, FANATICS.

          1. Corinne

            Re: Rational decision @ Observer1959

            "Apple makes the hardware and software"

            Actually Apple may have DESIGNED the hardware, or at least elements of it (the pretty external bits, and how the components are put together) but they don't manufacture it. The various components are made by specialist component manufacturers and assembled by Foxconn, and while some of the components are made according to Apple's specifications quite a few are standard "stock" items.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Rational decision @ Observer1959

              moron, that is all.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Rational decision @mark 16:27

          Mark, what a moronic shithead you actually are. <-- ad hominum attack

          Interestingly, your posts continue to display that you cannot read or in fact do not read the comments posted on this website. The over preponderance of rabid intellectual lightweight fanboys on this site leans in the "fandroid" favour by about 20:1 (conservatively).

          You entire post is made without reference to anything in fact. Just the normal mindless drivel you spout here constantly. If these forums had a kill switch, you would be the first on my list. Damn, even RICHTO writes something intelligent occasionally. You on the other hand promulgate mindless illogical crap.

          please go away.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: there are no "Samsonites"

          I actually own one.

          Jokes aside, I totally agree. Which is why people make fun of Apple/MS/Google/etc. fans. It's a load of ego worship. The masses want gods to worship. Give them gods I say, and make them cruel and tyrannical. HHOS

  6. David Hicks
    Stop

    I'm amazed at what's not considered

    The complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of prior art by the jury foreman, as evidenced by his own post-trial statements, and his admissions that he instructed everyone else to use his definition.

    Conflict of interest or no, and I find the conflict of interest argument pretty weak, the things he said should be enough to rule the whole thing a mistrial.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Agreed

      he ignored the Judges instructions and admitted it to the press later. That in itself should be enough to call it a mistrial

      1. David Webb

        Re: Agreed

        Sad as it sounds it looks like he could have said "hell yeah, I had an axe to grind against Samsung and got a $1b axe, FOAD Samsung!" and Samsung couldn't do a thing about it, as stated in the post:

        Judge Koh said that legally, Hogan's comments after the trial couldn't be used as evidence in a new trial

        1. MrXavia

          Re: Agreed

          So comments can't be used IN a new trial but surely they can be used as a REASON for a re-trial?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Agreed

            From the way its reported in the article here it appears that the Judge has said that Samsung can't claim a new trial on the basis of the bias of Hogan as they had the opportunity to question him in jury selection ... however that doesn't seem to cover the 2nd aspect that its claimed he "introduced new evidence" in the jury room by explaining to the other juries "how patent applications work".

            1. David Hicks
              Linux

              Re: Agreed

              He introduced complete b*ll*cks into the jury room -

              "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."

              It's not new evidence, it's a complete failure to understand what prior art means. Not that prior art is always given as much credence as us geeks think it should be given, but still.

      2. Toothpick
        Stop

        Re: Agreed

        Re: Ignoring the judges instructions. Here is a comment from Lucretius on Ars Technica:

        "Then, for those who view Groklaw as unbiased and an authority, here's news for you. They overlook facts.

        One of the most sensational claims by Groklaw, on the day after the verdict, was that the jury had apparently disregarded instructions (a +100 page document) during deliberations. This discovery was quoted on hundreds of forums and websites. The sole evidence was that TheVerge had a claim by the foreman to the court that the jury had reached conclusions without needing instructions, as mentioned on their live coverage.

        What actually happened, if you read the live coverage, is that the jury initially turned a verdict that contained contradictions concerning three decisions out of 600. Samsung mentioned these, and the court (and Apple) agreed to send the jury back to deliberation to fix these mistakes. The jury then asked for additional instructions to clarify the mistakes, which were sent to them. Meanwhile, the jury had apparently understood where the mistake was, and told the court that they had reached a conclusion without needing these instructions.

        But the myth that the jury had disregarded all court instructions and was proud of it is still alive... without any subsequent correction by Groklaw..."

        So no mistrial.

        1. David Hicks
          Thumb Down

          @Toothpick

          The lead juror in question is on video saying exactly what I quoted - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY

          This isn't about reaching conclusions without instructions, it's about total misunderstanding of what makes up prior art, which in a patent case is pretty important.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Toothpick

            Re: @Toothpick

            David - I was referring to the AC @ 12:23 regarding ignoring the judges instructions.

    2. trrllt

      Re: I'm amazed at what's not considered

      A misunderstanding is not cause for a mistrial--it was the responsibility of the lawyers to explain things to him in a manner that he could understand. And the conflict of interest is pretty strained. There's a good case that Samsung's lawyers found out about his earlier legal cases and chose not to object to him because he previously had been a defendant, and Samsung expected that would make him more sympathetic to the defense.

      1. David Hicks
        Stop

        Re: I'm amazed at what's not considered

        He explained the process they'd been through to decide the issues of prior art. He explained how he had come to a decision on what constituted prior art. This decision was then given by him to the rest of the jury. This decision was wholly wrong. I would say that it is the judge and the court's responsibility to explain to the jurors what the issues are and how they are applied, especially in slightly arcane areas like patents. Either they did this inadequately or the juror in question subverted the court's instructions.

        If there isn't a mechanism in law to recognise that what happened there results in a miscarriage of justice, then there ought to be.

        I agree the conflict of interest is a minor issue, if an issue at all.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm amazed at what's not considered

        For all you (and I) know Samsung may have known about it and decided to keep schtum as it could then be used later if they lost - if they won then of course it's irrelevant.

        1. David Hicks

          Re: I'm amazed at what's not considered

          "Judge Koh said that legally, Hogan's comments after the trial couldn't be used as evidence in a new trial"

          I'm sure it will come up in appeal, but (IMHO) it should have been a huge red light to judge Koh. I suspect we'll just have to watch this play out over the course of several years like the SCO thing. For a billion dollars it's worth Samsung's while to challenge it for as long as humanly possible. Or however long lawyers can do it.

      3. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
        FAIL

        Re: I'm amazed at what's not considered

        A misunderstanding is not cause for a mistrial--it was the responsibility of the lawyers to explain things to him in a manner that he could understand.

        However, Hogan chose to ignore what the lawyers explained and instead put forward his own half-arsed explanation of prior art.

        What about the jury awarding damages for Samsung product that the jury said did not infringe crApple patents. Sounds like Hogan wasn't the only one doing things in a half-arsed way.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm amazed at what's not considered

      Tell you what you should have been on the jury - but then again you prob work for Samsung PR. Second guessing this that and the other - got to love it.

      1. David Hicks
        Stop

        @AC

        "Tell you what you should have been on the jury - but then again you prob work for Samsung PR. Second guessing this that and the other - got to love it."

        Second guessing what? That quote from the foreman is plain as day and available on youtube.

        No, I don't work for Samsung, and the only sense in which I'm being paid to post this is that I'm posting this when I really ought to be working...

  7. Richard Wharram

    No new trial?

    But this isn't the same thing as 'no appeal' is it?

    I'm lost.

    1. Carl
      Happy

      Re: No new trial?

      Correct.

      The judge will not hear the case again, in her courtroom, on her circuit.

      However, the due process does permit Samsung to appeal the court above.

      When asking for an appeal, Samsung will need to show evidence that would pursuade a reasonable person to believe they didn't get a fair shake in Koh's courtroom.

      They have been gathering such evidence for a while now.

  8. Platelet
    WTF?

    it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection

    But according to:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/samsung_new_trial_attempt/ :

    "Samsung attached a portion of the jury selection process in which Hogan promises he can set aside his own understanding of patents and only use the judge's interpretation of the law and her instructions. But after the trial, Hogan and other jurors who gave interviews said that his experience helped them come to their decision"

    So if he lied during voir dire how is that Samsungs fault?

    1. MrXavia
      Holmes

      Re: it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection

      He lied.... and a jurer lying is surely cause for a mistrial?

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection

        Since juries operate under oath, isn't that Perjury? And a juror convicted of perjury taints the jury, meaning the trail is not by definition fair.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection

        Remember he was but one - assume that is why we have juries of so many people.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection

          But in a criminal trial they have to reach a UNANIMOUS decision: meaning EVERYONE has to agree. In such a situation, ONE tainted juror is enough, which is why the law says jury tampering is grounds for a mistrial.

    2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection

      He didn't lie there - he reneged. In voir dire, he said he could restrict his understanding of patents to that provided in the jury instructions, with the implication that he would do so. Then, in deliberations, he failed to behave as he had claimed he would during selection. There's no lie, and no perjury, just arguably juror misconduct.

      Koh decided that wasn't grounds for a mistrial, possibly because she doesn't think it rose to the status of misconduct; possibly because she doesn't believe Hogan's public remarks after the trial constitute legal evidence of misconduct; possibly because she thinks Samsung should have asked Hogan to be more explicit about following instructions and not using outside interpretations of patent law during voir dire; possibly for some other reason entirely. It doesn't do us much good to speculate.

      Personally, I'm curious why Samsung didn't eliminate Hogan with a peremptory challenge - maybe they'd used them up already, or maybe they thought their chances were better with him than with whoever was behind door number two. If I were defending a patent-infringement lawsuit, I don't think I'd want anyone with patent experience on the jury. That's much too unpredictable.

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. D. M
    Mushroom

    Isn't lying during void dire an offense by itself?

    As title, how is this not mistrial? How much did they pay to bribe the judge?

    The whole US legal system should be blowed up and start over.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Isn't lying during void dire an offense by itself?

      'blowed up'

      Nice Engerish.

      1. hplasm
        Happy

        Re: Isn't lying during void dire an offense by itself?

        Blownded up, y'all.

  11. Gordon 10 Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Go Judge Lucy

    She seems to be the only one coming out of this with reputation and sanity mostly intact. Whilst you may question some of her decisions - and lets face it if she said white is white - someone on the internet would - however she has been remarkably even handed in the whole thing.

    Justice seems to have been served - even if maybe the letter of the law hasnt'.

    Nearly everyone else involved in this from Sammy, Apple - their laywers and the juror's should hang their heads in shame.

    1. Craigness

      Re: Go Judge Lucy

      Samsung were found guilty of patent infringement by a jury which did not understand what constitutes prior art and could not understand when they were shown Samsung's multi-touch implementation that it was not as described in Apple's patent. The patent was not infringed and should not exist. Justice has certainly not been done.

  12. banjomike
    Stop

    kept things even between Apple and Samsung ...

    er, no. There is a slight pro-Apple tilt caused by the occasional billion dollar award.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: kept things even between Apple and Samsung ...

      The pro-Apple 'tilt' is because they were found guilty - that's how it works you see.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 13:16GMT - Re: kept things even between Apple and Samsung ...

        Being found guilty it's exactly the problem here. In case you didn't notice, the jury even hurried to grant Apple monetary damage for Samsung devices that were not found to be infringing. True, they came up with corrected figures but it is clear that their main preoccupation was to punish Samsung instead of just finding the truth. Judge expressly told the jury not to award billions as a punishment and our brilliant jury foreman told the press he wanted to inflict something that is more than a slap on the wrist because he is a patent owner and know how it feels in this kind of situations. So Samsung lawyers are correct here, no billions should change hands without this being sorted out first.

  13. Richard Jones 1

    Sue the Juror for tampering?

    If the juror comes out spouting about how he tampered with the outcome is that not a case of tampering.

    Had he come out in the UK and said what he has said he would now be in gaol anyway.

    1. Philip Lewis

      Re: Sue the Juror for tampering?

      What ????

      A juror cannot "tamper" with the outcome of a trial. This is meaningless drivel.

      Each juror has one vote and can influence the vote in proportion to the number of jurors. (elementary arithmetic).

      Each juror has the opportunity, in fact obligation, to weigh in with their input into the verdict.

      The foreman of the jury has the "herding cats" hat, but he has one vote.

      For all you folks out there who couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery, I ask you this. When was the last time you convinced 11 OTHER PEOPLE to change their mind on a single subject?

      This whole thing about the foreman is such a tedious discussion. The judge threw it out. Jury cases are always unpredictable and Samsung lost out.

  14. Trollslayer
    Thumb Up

    A good judgement

    Literally and I hope she sent both of them to bed without any supper.

  15. Tom 35

    "What changed between Samsung’s initial decision not to pursue questioning or investigation of Mr Hogan, and Samsung’s later decision to investigate was simple:

    Hogan shot off his mouth to the press, barging about how he ran the show, played the expert and told every one else what to say.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      He shot his mouth off - that does not mean that is what happened or that it had any negative influence on the other jurors. If you were a juror and some guy just started saying "yes he's obviously guilty coz I say so" maybe you would just ignore him. Give people more credit.

      1. mIRCat
        Facepalm

        "He shot his mouth off - that does not mean that is what happened or that it had any negative influence on the other jurors. If you were a juror and some guy just started saying "yes he's obviously guilty coz I say so" maybe you would just ignore him. Give people more credit."

        Then you would be ignoring the fact he said to the press that the jury was leaning torward a verdict in Samsungs favour until he misinformed them on the subject of prior art... among other topics.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Reckon it's more that he wants his moment of glory - maybe we should interview all the other jury members and ask them if they were so weak willed to be led by him?

      2. Stretch

        "Give people more credit." Have you met people?

        1. Richard 120

          To a further extreme

          Have you met AMERICAN people?

        2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          More to the point - have you met jurors?

          I've served, and even for a minor case, most jurors seem to feel a huge psychological burden. In a major case like this it's even worse. Consequently jurors are prone to questioning their own judgement, and in the deliberations room a little rhetoric can go a long way. If one juror - particularly the foreman, who's already in a position of some authority - starts to lecture the others on technical points, that person can have a tremendous influence on the verdict.

          The adversarial nature of the US legal system aggravates this, too - jurors see trials as a struggle between two sides, not as an attempt to discern abstractions like "truth" or "justice". So juries are swayed by narrative and appeals to emotion (pathos) more than by facts, particularly technical facts.

  16. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Trollface

    "which include Cupertino patents"

    This should be universally named "Cupertino's pretends".

  17. Stretch
    WTF?

    The actions of this jury-fanbois during the trial and after it are what should invalidate the whole thing. The judge here is wrong to say that samsung are stuffed as they didn't find this out during jury selection. How can questioning highlight the fact he was going to hide information and "steer" other members decisions?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Overcompensating, incompetent or fanboi

    Doesn't matter. The judge Koh basically ignored the elephant in the room, the gross misconduct by the imbecile Hogan, including the fact he lied during voir dire, and just pretended not to be too partial by not blocking Samsung's devices.

    As it had been seen almost from the beginning of the trial, the judge is either overcompensating for her origins, blatantly incompetent or a rabid fanboi, most of her decisions have been pro-apple.

    1. Wyrdness

      Re: Overcompensating, incompetent or fanboi

      Judge Lucy Koh is obviously biased. Everybody knows that. The Apple fanbois know that she's biased towards Samsung. Just go read any Mac forum to see how much they hate her. Then the Samsung fanbois claim that's she's biased towards Apple. She just can't win.

      Now where's that popcorn icon we asked the Reg for?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Overcompensating, incompetent or fanboi

      Desperate - the judge was not convinced - everyone likes a good conspiracy story even if there is little fact to back it up.

  19. sisk
    Facepalm

    As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung

    Um, what? That hasn't been my perception at all. It's looked to me like she's behaved as an Apple fanboi throughout the whole trial. The fact that she's disallowed a new trial despite that fact that there was clearly jury misconduct (and I'm not talking about the weak 'conflict of interest' argument here) is just the icing on the cake.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Ever considered maybe you have your own axes to grind and may not be completely impartial??

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      'clearly jury misconduct'

      Because you are the expert - Rumpole? You don't like the verdict so assume the one jury member was out to get Samsung and coerced all the others (who were so weak willed and ignored all they heard from the trial) to vote his way - then he goes and blabs it to the press. Ever considered he was out for some publicity and perhaps the others voted the way they decided to vote regardless of him?

  20. Richard 120

    Koh

    I reckon she's just chosen the most direct route to get it away from herself.

    1. MissingSecurity
      Devil

      Re: Koh

      Bingo.

      This is nothing more than fuck you both, take it elsewhere response. I can't blame her.

  21. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Megaphone

    ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THAT NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    $amsung = $amsung - $1.05bn

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Just wait for the appeal!

      Do you really think justice is ruled by the mood of a single juror ? It would be too simple.

      Adding up the two decisions are largely favoring Samsung. Suddenly they no longer have to hurry with the appeal.They can confidently drag their feet for a couple of years risking at worst a few hundred millions punishment while busily selling their (in my personal opinion only) rather good looking and affordable devices.

    2. Adam 1

      error in formula

      amsung = $amsung -$1.05bn + (0.2 x A6 CPU sold until 2014)

      Which is about 400,000 x $2.60 give or take some pretty large rounding errors.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    Want to talk about irreperable harm?

    All the legal jockeying is doing irreperable harm to my childish ideas that companies succeed by innovating and delivering superior value to customers.

    Otherwise, good for Judge Koh!

  24. Toothpick
    Black Helicopters

    I get the distinct impression here that a lot of comments are not based on the Apple v Samsung case but a parallel Apple v Android case. As Samsung are the current flag bearers for Android any action against them is construed as an 'attack' on Android.

    If Samsung were exclusively a Windows phone manufacturer, would there have been so much anti-Apple froth or barmy jury conspiracy theories.

    Samsung will get their time in court again when they appeal.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Patent angle

    You'd think it would be easier for Samsung to just get a legal team to have the patents thrown out for prior art or obviousness.

    1. Paul Shirley

      Re: Patent angle

      What makes you think that's not happening? As time passes Apple is gradually getting it's patents ruled invalid and in parallel established a record of losing in every court but this one.

      Samsung just bought themselves 9-36months injunction free delay waiting on their appeal. Delay while Apples weapons gets taken slowly apart by all the others they threatened. Also not well reported here, the design patents were criticised by Koh in the ruling and their weakness is part of why there are no injunctions. Fighting Samsung has damaged Apples IP claims quite well already.

  26. Glostermeteor

    Sounds like a sensible decision to me. I want the legal system to make it so pointless to pursue legal action in these cases that these companies go back to their day jobs, i.e building phones and competing in the marketplace.

  27. Pat 4

    FFS!

    Error number one.

    Samsung DID ask the Juror about his previous court experience, and about his impartiality... he apparently lied.

    Error number two.

    The juror himself has stated (confirmed by the other jurors) what arguments he used to convince the other jurors of Samsung being guilty... His arguments were so so flawed they were beyond wrong! Therefore, he convinced the jury using very VERY faulty "logic"... By THEIR OWN ADMISSION.

    Error three.

    The judge SPECIFICALLY instructed the Jury they they were NOT to calculate damages in a punitive way. Damage was supposed to be granted based on ACTUAL lost value... the jury, influenced by the juror, by their own admission... imposed punitive damages... wtf!?

    Error four.

    The jury SO didn't even pay attention ton their decision that they declared one product non infringing... but STILL decided to award damages on that "non" infringement...

    And you want to call that JUSTICE???

    I don't own a Samsung OR an Apple device of any kind, and I don't give a rats ass who wins... but come ON!!! You can't seriously stand there and argue that there nothing wrong here!!!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like