Apple Wins $1 Billion Patent Case

Out of context: Reply #43

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 128 Responses
  • monolith0

    Great comment on Engadget on the editorial piece about this ruling

    "I need to point out that people have spoken with jurors, and some damning facts were revealed.
    First, the jury felt from day one that Samsung had harmed Apple, the debate amongst them from that point was how much to punish them. It was a partial, biased jury from the get-go.

    Second, most of the jurors were unfamiliar with patent law... so they looked up to the jury foreman, who was a tech patent holder with a patent similar to Apple's. Thus, he had a vested interest in upholding Apple's patents, to create a precedent to protect his own patent if it ever came up in a court. He basically led the rest of the jury on it, which is why the jury disregarded the prior art.

    Third, the jury all came from near Cupertino, a region which economy depends on Apple's success and in which Steve Jobs is bigger than Jesus.
    If ever there was a case where a mistrial should be declared because of a biased jury (excluding the Jim Crow days in the South), this is it. The jury had made their minds before the trial began, the foreman had a clear conflict of interest and had authority on all others, etc...
    Everything Samsung's lawyers said fell on deaf ears. The jury was rigged to begin with, they could not win this.

    Here is a VERBATIM quote from the foreman:
    "“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”"
    Can ANYONE deny that this juror had a clear conflict of interest?

    Here is the link http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20….

    And it is a conflict of interest, don't kid yourself. The guy admitted he made his mind by thinking about his patent and not about the case at hand. He wanted to uphold Apple's patents not because of their own merits, but because he wants to protect his own patent.

    If he helped declare Apple's patent invalid here because of prior art, he would have created a precedent that could have hurt his own patent. That is a clear and definite conflict of interest. It is the very definition of a conflict of interest.

    Here is a definition of conflict of interest: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest"

    The primary interest here is serving as an impartial jury and rendering an objective and unbiased ruling. The secondary interest is the protection of this juror's own patent, which he ADMITS he understood to be equivalent to Apple's own patents involved in the case."

    monolith 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread