4 ms·

>> we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist." Wasn't the jury under instructions not to dole out punitive damages? That's left to the judge, the amou

by doktrin 14y ago

>> we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist." Wasn't the jury under instructions not to dole out punitive damages? That's left to the judge, the amount of which has yet to be decided. Maximum punitive damages are limited to 3x the original amount [1 billion], so the fact that this number was apparently inflated is non-trivial. [1] >> "I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?'" Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things." This juror clearly skirted the line of impartiality. I will have to read the whole interview. The notion of vigilante jurors doling out punishment based on their own bias is unsettling. As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place. [1]http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billion-verdict.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billi...

mrich 14y ago
> As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place. I think it has become clear now :)
cremnob 14y ago
All the parties involved are aware what a risk jury trials can be. It's why many companies settle, and Lucy Koh specifically warned them about this before the jury began to deliberate. They made their bed as far as I'm concerned. I do have a problem with the jury being criticized though. This happens in all high-profile cases where some group of people dislike the decision. Judges are very protective of juries for this reason.
- binxbolling 14y ago
  In my opinion, if you start speaking to the press, it's fair game for the public to criticize. You don't want to be knocked for a controversial decision? Don't go blabbing on record.
- vacri 14y ago
  When the jury indicate that they didn't read the jury instructions and consequently did things that they were not meant to do, it's completely fair for them to be criticised. Hell, if anyone else in the courtroom did something of a similar nature, it'd be a mistrial, so how is that an overlookable offense?
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> Lucy Koh specifically warned them about this before the jury began to deliberate To me, this is absolutely the most interesting part of the case. I'm wondering who refused to blink in this game of chicken. I've seen some reports that Apple approached Samsung with some highball settlement terms as a starting point for negotiations, but I'm wondering if Samsung's execs just decided to dig in their heels because of pride. I'm making a big assumption here, but in Chinese culture, "face" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept) -- is a big deal, especially the higher up you go in the food chain. I've seen relatives do stupid things just to "save face" or "give face". Not being Korean, I don't know whether "face" is a big deal, but I know their culture operates on similar ideas.
  - binxbolling 14y ago
    Saving face is huge everywhere in Asia AFAIK. Shame is a driving emotion, rather than guilt as in Western cultures. So not wanting to shame the company name could've been a driving factor. <insert standard disclaimer about generalizations>
luser001 14y ago
From reading Grisham (?) novels, I think each side only get a certain number of jury challenges. Maybe they ran out of challenges.

by doktrin 14y ago

mrich 14y ago

> As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place. I think it has become clear now :)

cremnob 14y ago

All the parties involved are aware what a risk jury trials can be. It's why many companies settle, and Lucy Koh specifically warned them about this before the jury began to deliberate. They made their bed as far as I'm concerned. I do have a problem with the jury being criticized though. This happens in all high-profile cases where some group of people dislike the decision. Judges are very protective of juries for this reason.

binxbolling 14y ago
In my opinion, if you start speaking to the press, it's fair game for the public to criticize. You don't want to be knocked for a controversial decision? Don't go blabbing on record.
vacri 14y ago
When the jury indicate that they didn't read the jury instructions and consequently did things that they were not meant to do, it's completely fair for them to be criticised. Hell, if anyone else in the courtroom did something of a similar nature, it'd be a mistrial, so how is that an overlookable offense?
slantyyz 14y ago
>> Lucy Koh specifically warned them about this before the jury began to deliberate To me, this is absolutely the most interesting part of the case. I'm wondering who refused to blink in this game of chicken. I've seen some reports that Apple approached Samsung with some highball settlement terms as a starting point for negotiations, but I'm wondering if Samsung's execs just decided to dig in their heels because of pride. I'm making a big assumption here, but in Chinese culture, "face" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept) -- is a big deal, especially the higher up you go in the food chain. I've seen relatives do stupid things just to "save face" or "give face". Not being Korean, I don't know whether "face" is a big deal, but I know their culture operates on similar ideas.
- binxbolling 14y ago
  Saving face is huge everywhere in Asia AFAIK. Shame is a driving emotion, rather than guilt as in Western cultures. So not wanting to shame the company name could've been a driving factor. <insert standard disclaimer about generalizations>

luser001 14y ago

From reading Grisham (?) novels, I think each side only get a certain number of jury challenges. Maybe they ran out of challenges.