Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises(groklaw.net)
groklaw.net
Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725
24 comments
Does this really change anything? Do you not think that a reasonable jury would come to similar conclusions? I'd call this clutching at straws TBH. I'm not convinced that all of Apple's claims hold water at all, but some do have merit, however ridiculous anyone seems to think design patents are. Painting Samsung as an innocent party and blindly ignoring what is in front of your eyes is wilful to say the least. Add Samsung's rather dubious attempts to extract unreasonable terms on FRAND licenses which it seems had already been licensed, it's hard to see them winning a re-trial. If they do, this whole affair would give reasonable grounds for Apple to appeal any decision anyway. Groklaw seems to be playing to peanut gallery here; there is little objectivity and way too much partisanship to consider any of the articles published there sound, or anywhere else for that matter, but a paralegal has no excuse IMHO.
I'm not sure it is wishful thinking. Pam does point out that the chances of this changing the outcome are slim.
I don't get it. Why is it some kind of revelation that prospective jurors said they wouldn't let their previous experience with related issues influence their decision in the case? Isn't that bog standard voir dire stuff?
ISTM that the legal system can't expect jurors to be blank slates on every issue, that's just impractical. A judgement would really be thrown out because a juror later commented that his foreman's experience with the patent system was useful during deliberations? Was the foreman supposed to forget he'd ever filed for a patent? That's a little like saying jurors deliberating over a hit-and-run can't discuss their own driving experience. IANAL, but surely the line you can't cross is a little further out.
ISTM that the legal system can't expect jurors to be blank slates on every issue, that's just impractical. A judgement would really be thrown out because a juror later commented that his foreman's experience with the patent system was useful during deliberations? Was the foreman supposed to forget he'd ever filed for a patent? That's a little like saying jurors deliberating over a hit-and-run can't discuss their own driving experience. IANAL, but surely the line you can't cross is a little further out.
This article is a continuation of many the site has posted. In previous articles they have gone on in detail about how the foreman ignored jury instructions. He invalidated prior art because the code wouldn't run on the iPhone processor, for example, and he said they calculated damages to send a message to Samsung and the industry as a whole. These things are both directly counter to the jury instructions, which do not require prior art to be binary compatible and state damages should only basically fix the amount of money lost by the other company, not be extreme to make a point. Here's one of the articles:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120828225612...
If the guy had that previous experience, but he followed the instructions, I don't think people would have complained. But instead he ignored instructions and took things into his own hands based on his incorrect perceptions of patent law he formed from his past experiences.
If the guy had that previous experience, but he followed the instructions, I don't think people would have complained. But instead he ignored instructions and took things into his own hands based on his incorrect perceptions of patent law he formed from his past experiences.
I don't want to re-litigate all this, but her argument puts an awful lot of weight on 15 seconds of the foreman speaking extemporaneously during a TV interview. I don't think it's outrageous to believe that when he said "processor" he was referring to the two devices broadly, and that he reads the '381 patent as applying to a different kind of system than the DiamondTouch. Even she specifies that the Apple patent covered "portable multifunction devices", which the DiamondTouch manifestly is not.
Again, I'm not arguing that the prior art is or isn't sufficient to throw out the patent. I'm only arguing that it's not a slam dunk that this juror "took things into his own hands" based on a few vague comments about their deliberations.
Again, I'm not arguing that the prior art is or isn't sufficient to throw out the patent. I'm only arguing that it's not a slam dunk that this juror "took things into his own hands" based on a few vague comments about their deliberations.
I don't think anyone here is ready to tar and feather the jury foreman here - but the fact that the interviews were given, and based on interviews with other jurors, it certainly seems suspicious.
And considering $1bn is on the line, I don't think it's too much to ask that we investigate this.
And considering $1bn is on the line, I don't think it's too much to ask that we investigate this.
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior experience" is over that line, no?
What's the evidence that he presented himself as an expert? He obviously knew more about patents than some of the other jurors, so he was better able to explain some of the material presented during the trial. Would it have been better if he'd just stayed silent and left them confused?
I can imagine what crossing a bright line would look like. Something like: "I know the judge told us X, but I'm an expert and really Y." But I don't think there's evidence that's what happened.
I can imagine what crossing a bright line would look like. Something like: "I know the judge told us X, but I'm an expert and really Y." But I don't think there's evidence that's what happened.
The interviews with other jurors made it clear that they deferred to his opinion in this case, the which makes it very hard for the foreman to deny what happened. Groklaw links a lot of the interviews so you can see for yourself, if you're curious.
I'm not sure why people are surprised here. It's not like the verdict against Samsung wasn't warranted and won't be upheld in subsequent cases. The problem is the juror's dismissals of other patents held by Samsung that clearly were applicable.
The only thing that makes this broken patent system remotely tolerable is a fiction of fairness. If we allow the jury to discard even this in punitive fashion, then things are worse than we realized.
P.S., sorry for the first garbled iteration of this post. I'm still dialing in SwiftKey for tablets.
I'm not sure why people are surprised here. It's not like the verdict against Samsung wasn't warranted and won't be upheld in subsequent cases. The problem is the juror's dismissals of other patents held by Samsung that clearly were applicable.
The only thing that makes this broken patent system remotely tolerable is a fiction of fairness. If we allow the jury to discard even this in punitive fashion, then things are worse than we realized.
P.S., sorry for the first garbled iteration of this post. I'm still dialing in SwiftKey for tablets.
The other juror's statements make it clear that there was confusion on the jury, and instead of asking the judge (as jurors are supposed to do), they relied on the foreman's personal experiences.
Making assertions about patent law that are objectively false would surely be over that line too. Questions of law are for the judge, questions of guilt or innocence are for the jury. Isn't that the rule?
Not sure about patent cases, but in criminal law, attorneys have the opportunity to challenge jurors and have them removed.
If I Was a Samsung attorney, the people Grok just pointed out would be at the top of my list to have excused from the trial based on their previous litigation experience and bias.
If I Was a Samsung attorney, the people Grok just pointed out would be at the top of my list to have excused from the trial based on their previous litigation experience and bias.
Which they already did to a few jury candidates. Both sides only get a few chances to do that, they can't remove everyone they want to.
Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification? IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise.
Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?
Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions and getting an unfavorable jury"?
"Couldn't this just be considered jury nullification?"
No, jury nullification depends in a large part with the constitutional double indemnity clause. Basically if you are acquitted (found not guilty by a jury) you cannot be re-tried on that crime even if additional evidence comes up that points to you. So a jury 'nullifies' a law by acquitting you even if you were guilty, it prevents the law from punishing you for your acts.
If the jury gets it wrong and convicts you, then you can appeal for a new trial and try again.
No, jury nullification depends in a large part with the constitutional double indemnity clause. Basically if you are acquitted (found not guilty by a jury) you cannot be re-tried on that crime even if additional evidence comes up that points to you. So a jury 'nullifies' a law by acquitting you even if you were guilty, it prevents the law from punishing you for your acts.
If the jury gets it wrong and convicts you, then you can appeal for a new trial and try again.
> IANAL, but I don't think the responses in voir dire (especially to follow the instructions of the judge or the letter of the law) are any kind of binding promise.
> Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions
If you take the position that a juror is allowed to lie their way through the selection process, also saying that it's the defendant's fault for not getting them rejected seems a little odd.
> Won't the appeals judge just say, "too bad for you, Samsung, for asking the wrong questions
If you take the position that a juror is allowed to lie their way through the selection process, also saying that it's the defendant's fault for not getting them rejected seems a little odd.
Look at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170
> Samsung was also treated unequally: Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to testify "we were ripped off" and "Samsung copied" (RT 509:11-510:22; 659:2-664:19; 1957:15-21; 1960:15-1963:1), while Samsung's witnesses were barred from explaining how Samsung's products differ from Apple's (RT 850-12-851:20; 2511:9-2515:5), or even how one Samsung product differs from another (RT 948:14-950:17). Samsung was required to lay foundation for any Apple document (RT 524:15-525:19; 527:3-12), while Apple was not (RT 1525:12-1526:7; 1406:11-1410:8; 1844:16-1845:8; 987:21-988:20; 2832:6-12). Apple was permitted to play advertisements (RT 641:6-642:16; 645:14-646:7), but Samsung was not (Dkt 1511). And Apple had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not. RT 1085:6-11; 1188:9-15; 1213:17-1220:5. In the interests of justice, Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and evenhanded treatment of the parties.
> Samsung was also treated unequally: Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to testify "we were ripped off" and "Samsung copied" (RT 509:11-510:22; 659:2-664:19; 1957:15-21; 1960:15-1963:1), while Samsung's witnesses were barred from explaining how Samsung's products differ from Apple's (RT 850-12-851:20; 2511:9-2515:5), or even how one Samsung product differs from another (RT 948:14-950:17). Samsung was required to lay foundation for any Apple document (RT 524:15-525:19; 527:3-12), while Apple was not (RT 1525:12-1526:7; 1406:11-1410:8; 1844:16-1845:8; 987:21-988:20; 2832:6-12). Apple was permitted to play advertisements (RT 641:6-642:16; 645:14-646:7), but Samsung was not (Dkt 1511). And Apple had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not. RT 1085:6-11; 1188:9-15; 1213:17-1220:5. In the interests of justice, Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and evenhanded treatment of the parties.
Samsung was barred from explaining how the F700 was different from the iPhone because they didn't submit the request in time. It is as simple as that.
The article says "with the judge asking the questions", so Samsung wasn't asking the questions.
The "nullification" in jury nullification refer to the jury nullifying a law because it's unjust or unfair, not to the judge nullifying the jury for not following the rules.
It's called Jury Nullification, kids.
By the way, I think Hogan said he was able, not that he would.
By the way, I think Hogan said he was able, not that he would.
Not sure, but I think jury nullification may apply only in criminal cases, essentially because of guarantee that defendant can't be tried more than once for same crime. With obvious misapplication of law by jury in a civil case I don't believe there's anything to prevent correction of the error.
No, it applies in civil cases, but the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict (so it's not as powerful).
the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict
That's not jury nullification.
That's not jury nullification.