Apple v. Samsung verdict under cloud as jury foreman found to have own smartphone patents

“The jury foreman in Apple’s landmark legal victory over Samsung, has a patent in his own name for a device that can be used in smart phones and tablets, it has emerged,” ANI reports.

“Velvin Hogan reportedly filed documents with the US Patent Office in 2002 for the ‘method and apparatus for recording and storing video information,'” ANI reports. “According to the Daily Mail, the disclosure has raised a huge potential conflict of interest as it is not clear if the patent has ever been bought or used by any tech companies.”

ANI reports, “It is not known if Hogan’s patent has been used or seen by either Apple or Samsung, but if he were biased in any way towards Apple it could have had a massive influence on jury’s decision.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung’s desperation on full display. if this is all you’ve got, boys, you’ve got nothing.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]

Related article:
Apple jury foreman: Here’s how we reached a verdict (with video) – August 28, 2012


      1. Please keep bashing Fox News while telling us how open minded and welcoming the left is. Any opinion that doesn’t agree with yours must be wrong. Even if it’s not, attack it or the person who said it into submission.

      2. Pirate: Mitch is right to point out that BLN clearly doesn’t know much about OWS. Perhaps he was wrong about the source, though, Fox News is only slightly more sensationalistic and full of ignorance and misinformation than _every_other_mainstream_news_media_source.

        Seriously folks, stop playing into the Democrat-versus-Republican flavors of “We love our corporate overlords!” Both major parties are designed to distract you from your freedom and representative government being stolen from you. The more you swear blind allegiance to R or D, the more you help piss away everything this country was supposed to stand for. That’s one of the main arguments of Occupy Wall Street – big corporations have bought our government. Do any of you really doubt that? If you believe that, then why do you keep pretending that the Republicans or Democrats actually are acting in your interests? Are you that gullible?!?

        Wake up – stop being useful fools to the not-really-two-party system.

      3. A new movement has started on the social networking sites it’s called BoycottApple. We noticed that even the hardcore Apple users have come out in protest of what Apple is doing against its competitors. However, at the same time we have Mike Elgan who thinks this whole movement is dumb. I, for one, don’t think so.
        Mike Elgan has published a passionate article “Why the ‘Boycott Apple’ Movement is Dumb” on Cult of Mac. I agree with Mike most of the time, but this time I do not.
        He cites the reasons why he thinks “the call for a boycott is misguided and futile”:
        It’s based on the myth of Apple exceptionalism.

        Boycott Apple advocates pretend to believe what they do not (or should not) believe, that companies don’t sue over patents because they are nice, or virtuous or believe in the free exchange of ideas. The reality is that they don’t sue because they don’t have a case, and it isn’t worth it financially.
        That’s not true; most companies don’t sue because they believe in capturing the market via innovation instead of litigation. They don’t acquire stupid patents like ’rounded’ rectangular devices. If that was the case there would be only one TV manufacturer in the world which could make rectangular TV sets with rounded corners. The rest of the TV makers would be making triangular or circular TVs.
        Apple has sued every company that appeared to be a potential threat to their market. After all, Microsoft’s Surface tablet has a visual design similar to that of the Samsung Galaxy Tab recently put under fire, but we very much doubt that Apple will sue Microsoft.
        More than that there is a prejudice here. The anger against Apple is not based on a myth of exceptionalism. It is based on a fact that its founder swore before he died that Apple will go to ‘thermonuclear war’ to destroy Android. What better case can there be for ‘exceptionalism’?

        #BoycottApple is based on the myth that Apple is not exceptional
        However, if the iPhone were banned in the US, the company would buckle under the impact. Apple has just one phone. And that phone represents a massive percentage of the company’s revenue.
        As if having just one product is the fault of the rest of the industry. Search and display ads used to be Google’s only product. Google didn’t sue every other search engine or display ad company. On the contrary there are gazillions of such companies (even Microsoft, the biggest copycat in the IT world, tried to enter the display ad market) but instead of suing them Google continues to innovate and maintains its leadership on the basis of superior product.

        Put Bing and Google together and there is a reason you will choose Google — the results are better. They did not sue even if they had only one product.
        The argument of suing left and right since you have only one product holds no ground.

        So, the movement is not based on the myth that Apple is not exceptional.

        #It’s based on the myth that Apple doesn’t innovate”
        No one is calling for #boycott Apple because they don’t innovate. If such a movement ever starts it will be started by the Apple users themselves to improve the quality of Apple products.
        Let’s get it clear what #BoycottApple is not about:
        Boycott Apple is not about a myth that Apple doesn’t innovate. No one started to boycott Apple when they learned that Apple shamelessly stole from Xerox Alto.
        The movement did not strart because Steve Jobs admitted that Apple has been shameless about stealing great ideas.
        The movement did not start when iOS 5 copied (or in Apple’s words, ‘stole’) a lot of important features of Android.
        The movement did not start when iOS6 ‘stole’ the idea of 3D maps from Google.
        The movement did not start when Apple stole the idea of popular 3rd party apps, banned them from the AppStore and introduced them as a feature of iOS with the next release.
        The movement did not start when Apple banned GPL licensed apps from the AppStore.
        The movement did not start when Apple became the moral police and removed the Wikileaks app from its App Store.

        The movement started when Apple, fearing loss of market share, started using ridiculous patents, which should not have been granted in the first place, and its deep pockets to get the competitor’s products banned.
        Apple did not sue Samsung asking ‘hey that feature infringes upon our stupid patent remove it from your product’. They called for a compelete ban. That’s even more infuriating. It’s like BMW gets Mercedes cars banned because the icon of ‘horn’ on Merc’s steering wheel looked like that of BMW.
        It’s ridiculous.
        Apple Doesn’t Respect Other’s Trademarks
        Apple is not known for respecting other’s trademarks as much as it wants to ‘defend’ its own. The historical legal battle between legendary Beatles and Apple is evident of that fact.
        I trust many iPhone users are not even aware that iPhone is a trademark of Linksys/Infogear (now acquired by Cisco). Apple did not give a damn about the trademark and went ahead to launch the product, despite objections by the then trademark holder. Cisco sued Apple for infringing their trademark. Later the two companies reached an agreement and they both own trademark on the word iPhone.
        The entire iPhone design and concept is a blatant copy and paste of the LG’s Prada phone. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference: “we consider that Apple copied Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
        While the company doesn’t care about the trademarks of others, it goes to extreme to ‘defend’ its own. It doesn’t feel ashamed of going after a tiny coffee shop in a tiny town of Germany and suing a family-run shop because Apple thinks Apfelkind infinges on its trademark. How is that going to confuse users? Will someone walk into the coffee shop and order an iPad?
        Don’t Blame Apple, Blame The System
        No doubt that our patent system is broken. Apple actually went global, beyond ‘our system’, and started suing Android players in every potential market around the world. [Apple lost two major design related cases in The Netherlands and UK, which is great news.]
        Not everyone is abusing the loopholes in our system. When was the last time Samsung sued LG, Sony, Sharp, or Panasonic because their TVs, laptops, and BluRay players looked similar? Did they claim design patent on a rectangular device which can be used to watch movies? Never! These companies believe in their products, they innovate and move on to the next product.

        Apple Is Scared
        I think Apple has started to fear that it cannot innovate any more. Either way, Apple is now trying to catch-up with Android. It was evident in the number of features Apple ‘stole’ from Android and implemented in the iOS5 and 6. Google did not sue Apple for doing so because that would be dumb. You do that only when you are insecure, when you are frightened that you have no new ideas left to sell.

        Who Abuses The Loopholes?
        I will give you a stupid example. You walk into a store with surveillance cameras all around you. The system is good. Perfect. You don’t try to steal anything. You walk into another store and there are no security cameras. No system in place because the shopkeeper trusts its customers. Will you start slipping things into your bags and pockets? No. Even though there is no system in place to monitor theft, you won’t steal. You won’t steal because you have ethics. Now, what kind of person would steal from this shop just because there is no monitoring system in place or because the shopkeeper trusts its customers?
        A thief. A criminal.
        That’s what Apple is doing. Taking advantage of a system which allows abuse, theft and crime. Mike while blames the system for allowing it, doesn’t allow people to criticise Apple for committing it.
        The BoycottApple movement is not ‘haters talking to each other’. This is the very technique corporate media adopts to crush any movement. That’s what the US corporate media did to destroy the Occupy Wall Street or Ron Paul R3volution.
        The Boycott movement is happening because people are getting sick of Apple’s tactics. It is happening because people are getting tired of Apple’s crimes. Because people are getting upset with the way Apple is using its deep pockets and the legal system to kill competition and restrict users’ choices.
        The people who are calling for BoycottApple are some of the smartest people I ever met. They are not running a dumb movement. It’s not fair to call it dumb. What I would call dumb is the message that I got on my email from an acquaintance who was very angry with Microsoft for removing GPLed apps from their Market Place. He called it an attack on open source and user’s freedom. The message signature said ‘Sent from my iPhone’.
        That reminded me of The Matrix:
        The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, and carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
        Boycott Apple is one of the most important online movements, something similar to the movement we saw in our fight against SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.
        Yes, I agree with Mike that the patent system is broken and it must be fixed. Everyone is playing their part. Organizations like EFF, who have legal expertise, are working on it. The industry players are working on it and are calling for a meeting in October. Users are working on it with their tiny #BoycottApple movement.
        Let’s go back to the example of the shop without cameras. Getting new cameras installed is important. But until we deploy cameras in the shop should we allow criminals to steal? Should not we spread awareness?
        So, until the patent system is fixed we cannot let Apple bully other players.
        If you agree join the movement and #BoycottApple.

      1. Under Political Correctness the English language (if not all languages) are becoming bland shades of gray. Instead of focusing on how something is said, why not focus on the meaning of what is being said.

        1. You minimize and disregard the disrespect in the use of the offensive term. Try and use the n-word in your approved derogatory remarks and see what you stir up, regardless of the context.

          As for what the original poster reveals about what he misunderstands with the OWS movement, he’s entitled to his opinion, no matter how stereotypical and wrong it is. He saw the opportunity to contribute with an unfunny and irrelevant joke that he thought was very clever.

          As for the topic in the actual article, Samsung would have had many chances to question and/or disqualify the juror before the jury selection was finalized. Any attorneys worth their fees would have identified jurors that were potential risks to the desired outcome of their client. Sucks for them, but if Samsung is going to cry about this, they have no one but their own legal team to blame.

      2. Blame that on the news media who covers OWS! You know the old story line of if ‘it bleeds, it leads’, must also apply to those that scream and yell the loudest get a microphone in their face. Have you seen OWS people interviewed? The r-word is as good as a description as can be applied. IF there are more reasonable, civil, educated people to be found within OWS, tell the news media to start interviewing them so one might get an appreciable notion of the group!

        But I can’t tell what is really offensive. Maybe you can help me out. David Chalian of Yahoo News, but who worked for ABC News, PBS Lehrer News Hour, etc. was caught saying on an open mic, “Romney happy to have a party when black people drown” to the laughter of the usual hobnob snobs of the press. Of course Yahoo news fired him. Not sure if Georgetown University will dismiss him…

        But I searched CNN, (former MSNBC), ABC News, NBC, etc and nothing. No reporting of quote and no reporting of Yahoo firing him. Wonder if the same could be said if the shoe were on the other foot and a Rep. Akin or Rush type were to make a similar comment. Would the press be as quiet?

        Gotta love those tolerant people on the other side.

    1. ha ha ha ha …… Judge, Jury & Apple Vs. Samsung.
      Actually we dont need trial.
      Send a Nuclear bomb to Samsung under the name of Apple-USA.
      Shame………………… ha ha ha ha ah aahahahahhhhh ha ha

  1. Why do people assume this means a bias towards Apple? Don’t they care that his daughter had a dog when she was younger that they named Samsung?? They loved that dog! But he clarely showed that he was able to overcome that bias.

  2. If they didn’t ask during jury selection whether the candidate ever filed or was awarded a patent then tough luck bozos! Too late to decide you care about it now. What BS and possible waste of tax payer money.

    1. +1

      None of the juror’s had an iPhone. Samsungs attorney’s made sure of it. If he revealed his patent before and they (either party) did not “excuse” him they can’t use that as a reason for filing an appeal. I would assume they didn’t excuse him because they figured it would work in their favor sense the person in question doesn’t use an iPhone.
      I guess whichever attorney they used to pick and exclude juror’s is looking like a fool this morning. hahaha

      This is just fodder for a news/blog story.

  3. However, this also should be a message to jurors: render your verdict and then shut the fuck up. This foreman vulva hogan is such a pathetic attention whore that he needs his own reality show. Serving on a jury is a civic duty not a path to celebrityhood.

    Just cash your social security checks and shut the fuck up, Vulva.

    1. Opj – My initial feelings were right in alignment with your view. I cringed when I saw him quoted in so many articles. The verdict had been reached – it should speak for itself. I still wish he hadn’t been so vocal but I did enjoy his interview on Bloomberg West. It is pretty comprehensive (almost 17 minutes) and provides anyone who has an interest in this verdict an inside the jury room perspective:

      1. Hence the problem. Look bck at my previous comments and I called it. This chap should of been excused as a member of the jury let alone being the Foreman. He owns a Patent hence his opinion naturally weighed on the side of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was effectively trying to secure a judgement that would benefit All Patent holders. In insight, the Jury should of been recruited outside of Silicone Valley.

        The US Justice Department will order a new Trail by Friday.

        1. So if I own an automobile I can’t sit on an automobile accident jury, or if I own a dog I can’t sit on a personal injury by dog bite jury? This is getting laughable. It’s 6 degrees of separation. The prospective juror has a cousin who knows somebody who once worked for a guy with a name that rhymes with the defendant’s, OMG!

          And BTW, it’s “should have”, not “should of”, and it’s “Silicon”, not “Silicone”. Maybe the San Bernardino Valley could be nicknamed “Silicone Valley” due to the number of boob jobs done there, but that’s not what the San Jose/Cupertino area is known for. And Furthermore, The use Of random Caps is Annoying.

          1. Thanks for your observations but typos will happen when typing on an iPad glass! In terms of your takes, you appear to have some intelligence hence you might want to retool your views.

            If a civil action involves a Doberman which bit YOUR child, then there would only be an issue with a member of the Jury that owns or has owned a Doberman. Chihuahua owners would not be an issue. Not that complicated and not sure why anyone has an issue with the Jury Foreman bing called out on this.

            As I indicated, he should have simply shut up and moved on, but no he decided to seek the limelight and in doing so he has clearly casted a doubt on the non-partisan atmosphere that should of reigned in the Jury’s deliberations.

            Pipe down Mr. Zeke pipe down!

            1. Whether or not the prospective juror owning the same breed of dog that is alleged to have bitten someone is grounds for dismissing the witness is up to the judge. If the opposing attorney wants a slam dunk rejection he/she would use a peremptory challenge, no reason necessary. If he/she is out of peremptory challenges, he/she would have to explain to the judge why the juror can’t be impartial. Typically, the judge then interviews to prospective juror, sometimes behind closed doors, and then makes a ruling. If the opposing attorney doesn’t raise either kind of challenge it is assumed the juror is acceptable to him/her. That being the case, if they knew about the potential conflict or prejudice and didn’t object to it at trial they cannot appeal based on it. At least that’s how it was last time I was in law school.

              And BTW, “should of” versus “Should have” is not a typo, nor an auto-correction.

            2. Zeke my dear little Zeke…. you speak’ it a lot of verbiage but have yet to address the post trial loose canon Jury Foreman’s self indulgence in blurting out comments that the Court will not treat lightly.

              Cheerio Zeke!

            3. What a juror says or does post-trial is irrelevant unless they admit to a criminal act that occurred before the verdict. The court doesn’t care. You continue to expose your ignorance of the law. You simply don’t get it. I’ve been on juries where people were verbally abusive and nearly came to blows in the deliberation room. It doesn’t matter.

              Are you an attorney? Did you attend law school? No, you’re just going on emotion and wishful thinking.

      2. I agree. The phrases “No comment” and “on-going litigation” come to mind. As if someone his age would not be aware that the loser will appeal. I was concerned about how he responded to her question about punishment. The first part of his answer sounded like a working definition of punishment to me. The second part of his answer, the financial calculations, seemed to rule out punishment as a factor. Still, I expect Samsung lawyers to pounce.

        1. There was no “on-going” litigation. The trial was over. It’s irrelevant. And for your information, when someone willfully, as opposed to negligently (accidentally), injures the plaintiff in a civil suit, the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, which are not based on any actual financial damage that occurred, but are determined by what the court believes it will take to get the attention of the defendant and make it unlikely that they will willfully repeat the offense.

  4. AND I cannot imagine that they didn’t ask if they have had any financial dealings with Samsung or Apple during jury selection…. Off with the foreman’s head if he lied or withheld during selection!!!!

      1. What everyone is missing is that whilst many of the points made about the Lawyer’s have merit, the Lawyers from either side could not have foreseen the post trial behaviour of the Jury Foreman which now clearly shows that he certainly had an opinion that was heavily influenced by his Patent ownership and how he would of overwhelmed the other members of the Jury with his verbose and what appears to be opinionated perspectives.

    1. The lawyers knew more about these jurors than the jurors did about themselves. When you get into cases of this magnitude, the lawyers hire specialists to investigate anything and everything about the potential jurors so they can pick and choose.

      The only potential issue is whether Samsung knew this information, sat on it, and now is trying to get the judgment thrown out because of it. I’m sure Judge Koh will see right through their tactics, however.

        1. Thanks, those were the terms I wasn’t sure of. I was at a criminal jury selection once and that’s exactly what happened–one side ran out of peremptory challenges and couldn’t provide cause to dismiss someone.

  5. An extremely misleading article. The patent in question is for a TiVo like device. I suppose it could be applied to smart phones, but that was certainly not the intention of the original patent. A more legitimate concern is whether there is prior art that could invalidate his patent. One could argue that because of his patent, the foreman was unduly biased against considering prior art.

    1. You COULD HAVE argued that in getting him dismissed before the trial began, during jury selection. Samsung’s lawyers knew about it and didn’t raise an objection. Too late to object now on appeal.

      1. I am just playing the devil’s advocate. If Samsung’s lawyers were out of peremptory challenges by the time they reached Velvin Hogan, then Samsung still might have grounds for appeal.

        1. Nope, they could have challenged the prospective juror for cause, since they knew about his patent ownership already. Had they done so the judge would have been required to rule on the eligibility of the juror then and there. They have unlimited challenges for cause. What’s limited is their peremptory challenges which don’t require cause. It’s too late to do anything about it now. They missed their chance. The court assumes that the juror was OK in the eyes of the Samsung lawyers. End of story.

          What the juror says or does after the case is decided has no effect on the decision or the appeals process.

    1. Exactly the example that I thought of.
      Besides having a patent to his name doesn’t indicate pro-Apple bias as both Apple’s and Scamdung patents were involved in the trial

    2. Indeed it does if the car brand you drive is part of a civil trial and NOT a criminal trial. Two very different sets of standards. This was all about infringement on Patents and he owns a Patent here not the best choice for a member for the Jury. This said, this chap has turned the verdict into a Circus and a money maker for his own benefit. All he needed to do was to shut the hell up. Now there is even video evidence of his verbose opinions which he undoubtedly pushed on the other 8 member of the Jury.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.