Samsung Denied New Trial After Apple's $1 Billion Verdict
South Korean technology giant requested new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.
A U.S. judge has denied Samsung's bid to be granted a new trial against Apple over the latter's $1 billion court case victory back in August, with the former being told it should have carried out more work during jury questioning.
The South Korean electronics giant pointed towards the jury foreman's failure to disclose previous litigation with Seagate Technology, which is a company in which Samsung is a major investor, in addition to alleged bias showcased by statements made to the media after the verdict.
Samsung argued that Velvin Hogan should have revealed to the judge during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, one of his former employers, which led to his filing for personal bankruptcy in 1993.
"Samsung has a substantial strategic relationship with Seagate, which culminated last year in the publicized sale of a division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.375 billion, making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate," the firm said in October. "Mr. Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning."
Samsung also referred to statements Hogan made during a post-verdict interview with Reuters. He said to the media outlet that the "the jury 'wanted to send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do, not just Samsung,'" and that the "message [the jury] sent was not just a slap on the wrist."
In denying the request, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the patent case, Lucy Koh, stated that Hogan's comments about legal standards utilized during deliberations were barred by federal evidence rules.
"Even if the standards related by Mr. Hogan were completely erroneous, those statements would still be barred, by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) and cannot be considered in deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing," she explained.
Koh blamed Samsung for not asking Hogan the proper questions that may have revealed any alleged bias against Seagate.
"Samsung could have uncovered the Seagate lawsuit, or at least Mr. Hogan's feelings regarding Seagate, had it exercised reasonable diligence in questioning Mr. Hogan during its allotted time in voir dire," she said. "Moreover, even without asking Mr. Hogan directly, Samsung could have exercised reasonable diligence outside of trial and could have discovered the lawsuit by requesting the bankruptcy file, exactly as Samsung did later, when it became motivated to do so."
That is some bullshit >
That is some bullshit >
There is something very weird in US justice system...
If you ever get wrongfully convicted for a crime you never committed, and later on your lawyer finds evidence that the jury that found you guilty was biased against you from the start, you would just blame your lawyer and bend over? Please say so, and let us know if that happens, we all would like to be in the courtroom.
Are you that brainwashed by Apple that you can not even admit that an erroneously verdict has been issued in this case by a flawed jury? Not to mention the biased judge that prevented Samsung's evidence to be presented to begin with, how is that for a "fair" trial?
Yes, apparently you are.
Not at all the case. The transcripts of the juror selection were already published--don't remember the site, but you can look it up and read through it. The lawyers hardly questioned the guy--no following up clearly obvious questions, etc. Which brings me to...
I didn't want Apple to be victorious with this whole lawsuit just because I dislike Apple and how they conduct themselves as a company. But come on, if the Samsung lawyers honestly didn't go after the foreman properly during jury selection (and my conspiracy theory was they knew about his history, and intentionally allowed him to remain on just to have this option of a mistrial later), it's their own dumb fault. As much as I wouldn't want Apple to win, I also would agree with the judge (this time...). If this is the true caliber of their lawyers, they ought to seek new ones.
How the fuck can you patent the "iCloud" when there's already thousands of other cloud services? Get off Toms you fanboy.
Don't feed the trolls.
I doubt this will stand if, as we all assume, Samsung appeals. A lot depends on which court hears the appeal . . . if it's the 9th Circuit, Samsung is probably cooked. On the other hand, the 9th Circuit has such an abysmal record of being over-turned by the SCOTUS that it might work to Samsung's advantage.
Its almost like people are trying to ignore Apple news in hopes that Apple news disappears from Tom's pages, but their overwhelming hatred for all things Apple compels them to comment anyway.
To ignore Apple news would be like ignoring terrorism. If Apple is allowed to get away with this crap they will think this is a good business plan (sue instead of compete). And if people ignore it, they are more likely to get away with it. So, NO, we're not trying to ignore Apple's draconian tactics. Apple got their hatred the old fashioned way... They EARNED it.