
Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises - divy
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725
======
sbuk
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.

~~~
scott_w
I'm not sure it is wishful thinking. Pam does point out that the chances of
this changing the outcome are slim.

------
twoodfin
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.

~~~
jbri
Surely "presenting yourself to the other jurors as an expert due to your prior
experience" is over that line, no?

~~~
twoodfin
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.

~~~
KirinDave
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.

------
at-fates-hands
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.

~~~
cooldeal
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.

------
bhousel
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"?

~~~
t314159
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.

~~~
taligent
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.

------
blacklooksgreat
It's called Jury Nullification, kids.

By the way, I think Hogan said he was able, not that he would.

~~~
hesitz
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.

~~~
ars
No, it applies in civil cases, but the Judge has the power to set aside the
verdict (so it's not as powerful).

~~~
danielweber
_the Judge has the power to set aside the verdict_

That's not jury nullification.

