4 ms·

My opinion of Groklaw has really gone down because of their coverage of Apple v Samsung. They have really focused an inordinate amount of attention on the jury,

by mbreese 14y ago

My opinion of Groklaw has really gone down because of their coverage of Apple v Samsung. They have really focused an inordinate amount of attention on the jury, and when your argument starts to look at the people instead of their decision, you're not starting down a good road.

cooldeal 14y ago
Groklaw has been pretty much heavily biased right from inception. It's just that you're noticing it now because it's no longer in alignment with your own biases in the Apple case.
- mbreese 14y ago
  It's always been biased, but during SCO / IBM, it seemed like there was more fact-based reporting based on the exhibits from the case. This is the first time that I remember them going after a person, especially one that was part of the court proceedings (jury), and not a plaintiff/defendant. It seems very hypocritical to go after the jury foreman so voraciously when PJ was so protective of her private life. I'm sure they published things about McBride, but at least he was part of the suit.
  - shardling 14y ago
    Samsungs is appealing based on the foreman's personal ties to Seagate. That's why all this stuff is being talked about now. (He didn't disclose during jury selection that he had been involved in a lawsuit against Seagate, which is primarily owned by Samsung.)
Karunamon 14y ago
>They have really focused an inordinate amount of attention on the jury, and when your argument starts to look at the people instead of their decision, you're not starting down a good road. Except the problem here is that the decision was seemingly directly influenced by the people. The whole point of jury selection is to keep this kind of thing from happening. Samsung screwed up badly.
- adestefan 14y ago
  Samsung has the right to shoot themselves in the foot and no judge will take their right away from them.
  - koeselitz 14y ago
    There's an interesting question here, actually. Do people really have the right to screw themselves out of a fair trial? I guess so - if only because it would be very difficult to deprive people of this right. I would point out, however, that most constitutions I know of go to great lengths to try to deprive people of the right to screw themselves out of a fair trial. That's why people are given public defenders if they cannot afford a lawyer, for instance. More to the point - this case isn't just about Samsung. Everybody is affected by the changing limitations and definitions involved in patent law. So while it's hard to say that Samsung doesn't have a right to screw up their own defense, it's also hard to say that justice isn't infringed when jury selection is botched here. At the very least, if someone were a champion of Apple's cause here (and I am not saying I am one) then that person would justifiably be very upset to see that what could have been a clear and direct case setting precedent of the future can become a hazy decision which will be ardently appealed and at the very least questioned for years.
    - adestefan 14y ago
      You're confusing criminal and civil cases. People are given public defenders when they're part of criminal case, but not when they're part of a civil suit. All of this protection is so people are not railroaded by the government in court. People can be railroaded by other people/corporations and the government doesn't really care (for the most part). As to your broader point, then the parties in the follow-up cases can argue that it doesn't make any sense since Samsung screwed themselves. It would then be up to a judge look at the established case law and say, "No this is incorrect." It would then be up to an appeals panel to decide which is the correct interpretation. These things takes years and even decades to work their way through the system.
shardling 14y ago
That's a daft statement. It's definitely possible for juries to decide improperly -- whether Samsung succeeds on its appeals depends on stuff like that, so of course groklaw will focus on it. They didn't discuss any personal affairs of the foreman until it was revealed out that Samsung was claiming those very affairs were grounds for an appeal. Whether the specific details about the foreman in this article are relevant or not is another matter -- but that's not what you seem to be basing your opinion on.

by mbreese 14y ago

cooldeal 14y ago

Groklaw has been pretty much heavily biased right from inception. It's just that you're noticing it now because it's no longer in alignment with your own biases in the Apple case.

mbreese 14y ago
It's always been biased, but during SCO / IBM, it seemed like there was more fact-based reporting based on the exhibits from the case. This is the first time that I remember them going after a person, especially one that was part of the court proceedings (jury), and not a plaintiff/defendant. It seems very hypocritical to go after the jury foreman so voraciously when PJ was so protective of her private life. I'm sure they published things about McBride, but at least he was part of the suit.
- shardling 14y ago
  Samsungs is appealing based on the foreman's personal ties to Seagate. That's why all this stuff is being talked about now. (He didn't disclose during jury selection that he had been involved in a lawsuit against Seagate, which is primarily owned by Samsung.)

Karunamon 14y ago

>They have really focused an inordinate amount of attention on the jury, and when your argument starts to look at the people instead of their decision, you're not starting down a good road. Except the problem here is that the decision was seemingly directly influenced by the people. The whole point of jury selection is to keep this kind of thing from happening. Samsung screwed up badly.

adestefan 14y ago
Samsung has the right to shoot themselves in the foot and no judge will take their right away from them.
- koeselitz 14y ago
  There's an interesting question here, actually. Do people really have the right to screw themselves out of a fair trial? I guess so - if only because it would be very difficult to deprive people of this right. I would point out, however, that most constitutions I know of go to great lengths to try to deprive people of the right to screw themselves out of a fair trial. That's why people are given public defenders if they cannot afford a lawyer, for instance. More to the point - this case isn't just about Samsung. Everybody is affected by the changing limitations and definitions involved in patent law. So while it's hard to say that Samsung doesn't have a right to screw up their own defense, it's also hard to say that justice isn't infringed when jury selection is botched here. At the very least, if someone were a champion of Apple's cause here (and I am not saying I am one) then that person would justifiably be very upset to see that what could have been a clear and direct case setting precedent of the future can become a hazy decision which will be ardently appealed and at the very least questioned for years.
  - adestefan 14y ago
    You're confusing criminal and civil cases. People are given public defenders when they're part of criminal case, but not when they're part of a civil suit. All of this protection is so people are not railroaded by the government in court. People can be railroaded by other people/corporations and the government doesn't really care (for the most part). As to your broader point, then the parties in the follow-up cases can argue that it doesn't make any sense since Samsung screwed themselves. It would then be up to a judge look at the established case law and say, "No this is incorrect." It would then be up to an appeals panel to decide which is the correct interpretation. These things takes years and even decades to work their way through the system.

shardling 14y ago

That's a daft statement. It's definitely possible for juries to decide improperly -- whether Samsung succeeds on its appeals depends on stuff like that, so of course groklaw will focus on it. They didn't discuss any personal affairs of the foreman until it was revealed out that Samsung was claiming those very affairs were grounds for an appeal. Whether the specific details about the foreman in this article are relevant or not is another matter -- but that's not what you seem to be basing your opinion on.