7 ms·

Groklaw brings up these points because they're relevant to the case, not to "drag him through the mud." The prosecution needs to convince the jury beyond a reas

Groklaw brings up these points because they're relevant to the case, not to "drag him through the mud." The prosecution needs to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, WITHOUT preconceived notions of any kind. This jury foreman had history with patents that he brought to the jury which influenced their decision. That, by definition, is not a fair trial.

cube13 14y ago
Which does place a lot of questions with what Samsung's legal team was doing during the jury selection. One of the questions asked of him was whether or not he had obtained a patent. He answered in the affirmative, and that should have been enough for Samsung's team to consider him a potentially biased witness. I've personally seen potential jurors thrown out for less of a reason when I had jury duty.
- debacle 14y ago
  He lied (or at the very least was not entirely truthful) during jury selection. Samsung can't account for that.
  - cube13 14y ago
    He was truthful about the patents, which I think are a bigger flag than the entire Seagate thing.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    Well, under the standard oath, to which people are sworn when offering testimony, not providing the whole truth counts as lying. It's cases like this that justify the wording of the oath ("the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth").
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  I think each side gets only a limited number chances to disqualify potential jurors, so Samsung might have run out of objections.
vvhn 14y ago
From it's coverage, it seems that Groklaw and not Samsung has actually lost the case and every one of its articles on this case has set out to right that "wrong". So now, unless the document specifically directs using the exact words "Copy the iPhone" it actually says the opposite ?
- DanBC 14y ago
  Was the Samsung "Heaven or Hell" inspiration speech document translated from Korean, or was it delivered in English and written in English? Because to me it doesn't seem to be saying "copy iPhone", unless "build the best phone you can and make the UI better; make it better than iPhone" is the same as "copy the iPhone".
adestefan 14y ago
A patent case is a civil case so the plaintiff does not need to convince anyone "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead, they only need to show that the preponderance of the evidence is in their favor. So all Apple had to do was convince a jury that Samsung was more likely to have violated their patents than to have not violated.
DanBC 14y ago
Groklaw doesn't, in this post, mention the patents that the foreman had, nor how they affect his perception of the case. Groklaw makes a lot of points about a previous bankruptcy, and makes a lot of insinuations about character. But there's no smoking gun there. There's nothing cut and dried. There's just a bunch of unpleasant sniping at the man's character. I'm firmly on Samsung's side here; I always thought the result was ridiculous. Groklaw managing to alienate me is evidence that they're going to far.

cube13 14y ago

Which does place a lot of questions with what Samsung's legal team was doing during the jury selection. One of the questions asked of him was whether or not he had obtained a patent. He answered in the affirmative, and that should have been enough for Samsung's team to consider him a potentially biased witness. I've personally seen potential jurors thrown out for less of a reason when I had jury duty.

debacle 14y ago
He lied (or at the very least was not entirely truthful) during jury selection. Samsung can't account for that.
- cube13 14y ago
  He was truthful about the patents, which I think are a bigger flag than the entire Seagate thing.
- lutusp 14y ago
  Well, under the standard oath, to which people are sworn when offering testimony, not providing the whole truth counts as lying. It's cases like this that justify the wording of the oath ("the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth").
recoiledsnake 14y ago
I think each side gets only a limited number chances to disqualify potential jurors, so Samsung might have run out of objections.

vvhn 14y ago

From it's coverage, it seems that Groklaw and not Samsung has actually lost the case and every one of its articles on this case has set out to right that "wrong". So now, unless the document specifically directs using the exact words "Copy the iPhone" it actually says the opposite ?

DanBC 14y ago
Was the Samsung "Heaven or Hell" inspiration speech document translated from Korean, or was it delivered in English and written in English? Because to me it doesn't seem to be saying "copy iPhone", unless "build the best phone you can and make the UI better; make it better than iPhone" is the same as "copy the iPhone".

adestefan 14y ago

A patent case is a civil case so the plaintiff does not need to convince anyone "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead, they only need to show that the preponderance of the evidence is in their favor. So all Apple had to do was convince a jury that Samsung was more likely to have violated their patents than to have not violated.

DanBC 14y ago

Groklaw doesn't, in this post, mention the patents that the foreman had, nor how they affect his perception of the case. Groklaw makes a lot of points about a previous bankruptcy, and makes a lot of insinuations about character. But there's no smoking gun there. There's nothing cut and dried. There's just a bunch of unpleasant sniping at the man's character. I'm firmly on Samsung's side here; I always thought the result was ridiculous. Groklaw managing to alienate me is evidence that they're going to far.