“During the summer patent trial involving Apple and Samsung, jurors found that Apple was guilty of infringing on Samsung’s patents and awarded the company $1 billion in damages,” Louis Bedigian reports for Forbes.
“According to Computerworld, Lucy Koh — the judge that presided over the patent trial — will consider Samsung’s claims of jury misconduct,” Bedigian reports. “Samsung alleges that jury foreman Velvin Hogan was not truthful during the voir dire, a court procedure in which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases. Hogan neglected to reveal the fact that Seagate — his former employer — sued him in 1993 for breach of contract… At first glance, this might seem like an irrelevant bit of information. But in December 2011, Seagate acquired Samsung’s HDD business in a $1.4 billion deal that consisted of cash and 45,239,490 Seagate shares. ”
Bedigian reports, “Samsung may never know if Hogan purposely hid that information from the court. Only he can answer that question. But his admission — temporary or otherwise — could be enough to cause a mistrial. If that happens, the $1.05 billion verdict will be vacated, forcing Apple and Samsung to start all over.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Samsung’s grasping at straws, but predicting an outcome from the U.S. legal system is a fool’s errand. If we had to bet on anything, we’d bet that Samsung’s lawyers made sure Hogan was on that jury as insurance in the event they lost. Yes, it’s pretty piss-poor insurance, but it’s something, at least (Judge Lucy bought enough of it not to have dismissed it out of hand). And, judging by the evidence below, it’s quite likely Samsung’s legal team knew full well that their chances of losing were high.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Related articles:
Samsung claims jury foreman ‘misconduct’ tainted Apple patent case – October 3, 2012
Apple calls Samsung’s allegation of jury misconduct ‘frivolous on its face’ – September 26, 2012
Judge Lucy Koh to consider whether foreman in Apple v. Samsung concealed info – November 9, 2012
Samsung goes after jury foreman in bid to reverse Apple verdict – September 26, 2012
Gotta love our legal system!! an culturally biased judges
Racist much?
Maybe you think the WWII concentration/internment camps for American citizens of japanese descent were a good idea?
perhaps you’re not familiar with Pearl Harbor.
What have Japanese Americans to do with this issue?
You need to get a clue about concentration camps vs internment camps. I don’t think the internment camps were America’s finest hour, but they were not places to carry out genocide.
@botvinnik – I think you are the one not familiar with Hawaiian history during WWII. Hawaii did not round up and lock in camps their American citizens of Japanese ancestry. That only happened to American citizens of Japanese ancestry on the US mainland.
@Abdullah – MDN has had many crackpots accusing Judge Koh, who is of Korean ancestry, of going easy on Scamdung, because it is a Korean company. I read MacheadB’s comment as being another slur on Judge Koh’s reputation. The MDN editors were also party to this slander. If Judge Koh ruled in favor of Scamdung on a particular point, she was reviled; when she ruled in favor of Apple on another point, she was lauded.
@quiviran – You need to learn the difference between concentration camps and death camps. The Nazis had death camps for Jews and other so called “undesirables”, they also had concentration camps for other political prisoners. Other regimes have also had concentration camps, such as the Soviet Gulag system. Popular usage conflates the two when they were distinctly different.
Very true as someone who has been to Auschwitz/Birkenau to see an internment camp as the same thing as that abomination is wanton stupidity. Its indicative of looking at things in a superficial way whatever the subject matter at hand.
I would however be interested to know if you are claiming that MDN itself was reviling her because she is of Korean heritage, your words are not clear on this subject. MDN tends to revile anyone who gives a critical judgement upon Apple that materially effects it, unless its one of its own particular bugbears.
Did you really expect anything less from the elite MDN users?
And what basis do you have for throwing that live hand grenade out? NONE.
The idea that a U.S. District Court Judge is helping out a foreign company in a hugely important and exceedingly public trial just because her heritage is Korean is stupid, racist, and without any basis in fact. Take your MacHeadB and shove it where nothing shines.
“During the summer patent trial involving Apple and Samsung, jurors found that Apple was guilty of infringing on Samsung’s patents and awarded the company $1 billion in damages,” Louis Bedigian reports for Forbes.
FOUND that APPLE was GUILTY?
NO this SENTENCE is wrong. FOUND SAMSUNG guilty and AWARDED Apple of 1.05 Billion…
WHO trying to RE-WRITE history here.
She is the first Asian American United States District Court Judge in the Northern District of California, the first District Court Judge of Korean descent in the United States, the first female Korean American Article III judge, and the second Korean American federal judge, after Herbert Choy of the Ninth Circuit.
Great first paragraph:
Apple was guilty infringing on Samsung’s patents????
Remember when journalists tried to tell the truth?
So true, the utterly corrupt US media delivered the illegal election victory to the criminal scum that is currently squatting in the White House, with an unparalleled RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN against is opponent.
Truly disgusting.
Goebbles would be so proud! But Americans are to ignorant to know who Goebbles was.
Between the Kardashians and the Shopping Mall they wouldn’t know the ass from their elbow.
Oh give me a break. The fact is that fewer and fewer people are identifying with the Republican party because they always put forth the “old white guy” as their candidate, and that’s just not who’s voting any more. The fact is fewer registered Republicans voted in this election than voted in Obama-McCain. So if you want to blame anyone, blame the Republicans who sat at home and watched Obama win.
Can everyone, please, just not bother replying to the brain-dead vitriolic ravings of those such as the 14-year-old Ubermac. Most of us here don’t give a shit — while we’re on this site, I mean. Let them put their stupid little posts and ignore them. Nothing you can say will have any effect.
Why don’t you report me here to the “Obama Truth Team” like a good NAZI brown shirt, so the “Truth Team” can deal properly with my re-education.
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/report-an-attack
Hey, Obama Truth Team! There is an idiot on this forum who calls himself Ubermac. He has requested the opportunity to be re-educated under your tutelage.
Hussein Oscumbo was elected with the illegal votes from the 11 million illegal aliens living in the US. So yes, his presidency is ILLEGAL based on current US law.
“The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people” – Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
And your evidence that a significant number of those 11M voted? I thought not. You are so ludicrously ineffective, it is almost entertaining. Almost…
Fuck off with the politics, Ubermac. Doubly so for such drooling, brain dead ravings. But even if you were saying something coherent, just fuck off.
The only brain dead people are dumb assholes like you who vote for a complete fraud like Oscumbo. The most disgusting president in US history.
A Muslim hatemonger that has this piece of shit as man supporter.
“Destroying America will be the culmination of my life’s work.” — George Soros
I voted for Obama. He was the better option in this election. Tens of millions of people felt the same way. Tens of millions of people didn’t.
You are an overachiever, Ubermac. Romney only managed to offend and alienate 47% of the American people. You just succeeded at dissing at least 49%. Congratulations.
Four candidates have won the presidency twice with over 50% of the vote:
Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Reagan
Obama
There’s your fscking mandate! Now Heil yourself outta here!
Yeah…I read that line three times? And this story was on every other website days ago. Days.
What does Seagate in 1993 have to do with Samsung buying it in 2011? If this had happened at the near the same time, I might be able too see a possible connection, but a decade later? Hogwash.
Close to two decades, actually. It’s ridiculous.
i think i read the foreman got sued by seagate for a patent. he did have some useless patent to his name which is why he became the foreman
But Apple ALSO has “strategic business relationships” with Seagate, don’t they?
Even if they don’t, I can’t see how a judgement against Samsung is supposed to be some kind of retaliation by a juror against Seagate. Just doesn’t add up.
This seems like total BS.
He probably forfeited a bunch of Seagate stock options, which would have been worth something had he been able to exercise them and later cash them in. Just pure speculation on my part, though.
Exactly. Samesung knew about this during jury selection but let him on so they could use this as an inevitable insurance policy.
Samsung are going to slowly claw the money back in other ways anyway. The prices they charge Apple for making A6 and A6X chips have gone up 20% since the judgement. $2.50 a chip X the Christmas numbers of iPads and iPhones = quite a lot of cash.
That doesn’t offset the plant Samsung had to idle/slow production of displays because Apple stopped buying displays from Samsung for iPads.
This story needed a better editor.
“During the summer patent trial involving Apple and Samsung, jurors found that Apple was guilty of infringing on Samsung’s patents and awarded the company $1 billion in damages,” Louis Bedigian reports for Forbes.
Sam-whatever was found guilty of willful infringement to the tune of $1 billion dollars not Apple.
It also says Seagate acquired Samsung’s HDD business, and I believe it was the other way around.
He should have kept his trap shut and he knows it.
This verdict needs to stand as a precedent; the amount of damages are nowhere near as important. Apple has already done more damage to Samsung by dropping a few supply contracts. If Apple can’t get them convicted with that do-everything-like-Apple PowerPoint, why even bother? Apple’s ideas will be free for the taking.
The hole Samsung shot in their own head is bleeding them FAR more than any damages they’ll have to fork out to Apple.
‘Samsung’: Stupid in Korean.
DESPERATE MUCH ShameScum?
OK, legal eagles. Let’s understand something. The juror had a legal obligation for full disclosure. He didn’t comply. Soooo…
Now a judge has to rule on the validity of the verdict. Our legal system is fine. All of you Perry Masons only complain when the proceedings apply against Apple. A court is a level playing field. Lawyers make that playing field level.
Quit whining. This is going exactly as it should.
Right on tone, isn’t it amazing how many legal experts we have commenting here? Who knew there were so many brilliant legal eagles here.
I read where the Q/A of a person’s background in this instance goes back 10 years. Further, it’s up to the lawyers to dig deeper if beyond this threshold rather than the onus being on the prospective juror.
tbone,
bull and $h1t During the jury selection phase, potential jurors were asked to disclose any litigation they had been involved in up to 10 years prior. Lets see, 2012 – 10 years, = 2002. The Foreman’s past litigation with Seagate was in 1993 Lets see again, 2002- 1993 = 9 years. The incident in question was 9 years prior to the disclosure date agreed upon by attorneys on both sides. SameDung doesn’t have a leg to stand on. They got to question the guy, and they approved him. Simple as that. Judge Koh, or maybe the entire legal system in general is at fault for not having an NDA for 12 months after the verdict for jurors.
X-fscking-zactly!!!!
Wrong, tbone. Jurors are required to truthfully answer the questions they are asked. Jurors are not asked the “Tell me about yourself” questions you get in job interviews. These questions are specifically targeted to find out certain questions. Plus, in very high profile, high dollar cases like Apple v. Samsung, the attorneys know everything about the jurors before they even ask questions. It’s not like this was a lawsuit from another country.
If Samsung’s lawyers didn’t know about this in advance and specifically ask him about it, then Samsung should file a malpractice claim against its attorneys. Or, as has been suggested, Samsung’s attorneys knew the information, specifically avoided asking about it, and kept it as a potential legal argument to get any verdict tossed out if/when they lost because they knew the case was stacked against them.
The judge has to at least hear the complaint and investigate. From what I have read elsewhere, the jury questionnaire specifically asked about any involvement in litigation in the past 10 years. As his lawsuit was more than 10 years ago, you cannot said he lied about anything.
Agree. He might have gotten a rash from diapers made by Samsung too – there is a cut off date for a reason.
Hey – he did not violate anything if they did not ask him about it – their mistake for not asking the correct questions in the first place..
Koh should exercise real judicial disretion and throw out Shameshung’s appeal as a desperate effort to divert from the cause.
She has to fully hear the arguments and give them proper attention, or her decision to throw out the motion could be reversed and remanded upon appeal, which would extend the case much longer than if she takes the time to let both sides argue it out now.
Not withstanding…
The fact that Judge Koh is willing to hear this issue is actually a means to protect the decision from appeal going overboard in allowing the losers a chance to vent only makes the case stronger for Apple.
remember she is Judge Koh(rea)
STFU, or show some actual proof she is favoring Samsung.
If coporations are people then theives can accuse
Ding Dong: “That Jury Foreman guy talked to a girl who had a friend whose last name starts with the letter “T” who had a cousin who on the 5th of March stood at a window and seven geese flew by…”
Judge Dohh: “Let me stop you right there, absolutely, I agree, I am calling a mistrial. People who watch geese fly cannot be trusted.”
He was asked about this in an interview after the case, and he said the jury questioning was about lawsuits in the past 10 years, so he didn’t withhold any information. Samsung lawyers had the opportunity to do their own research or ask other questions, they either didn’t or held this as a possible card for later play after jury selection. My educated guess is that this motion is denied.
To quote the BARD….Much ado about nothing.
So Samsung is accusing a Juror of misconduct….making allegations that this Juror lied. Isn’t publishing false statements in written or recorded form about a person considered Libelous….Samsung better tread carefully.
Even if the judge drops all charges which I”m not convinced she will do, Apple has already made it’s position clear to Samsung. It was never really about the money for but about Apple’s right to defend it’s intellectual property.
Why should we give the author of this article ANY weight at all when there are so many errors of FACT in the article, starting in the very first paragraph where the author misstates the winner and loser, and who was found guilty of what?
So, First of all, APPLE WON the suit against Samsung. SAMSUNG was found liable for infringing Apple’s patents, not the other way around as the article states it.
Secondly, the jurors were required to reveal only the past ten years of their history, not events that occurred in 1993, NINETEEN years before the start of this trial. The foreman of the jury did not neglect to reveal what he was not asked.
Finally, there is no intent or need for Apple to sign a cross licensing agreement with Samsung. Samsung’s patents are what are part of the industry standard essential patents (SEP), those which Samsung have agreed to license under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discrimanatory rates (FRAND) to all producers of cellular phones and devices, including Apple. As part of the SEP, they have agreed NOT to use them as part of an infringement lawsuit. . . which, in the case of Apple, they are, in an attempt to gain access to the patents they are infringing. Apple has no reason to cross patent their Intellectual Property to gain access to patents they already have a legal right to license under FRAND rates already.
“jurors found that Apple was guilty of infringing on Samsung’s patents”
??? That is incorrect, it should be that samsung was found of infringing on apple’s patents, not the other way around.
Oh, shit! Apple’s lawyers commit mass seppuku.