Got a tip for us? Share it...

Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial

CNET is reporting that Judge Lucy Koh will "consider the questions" of whether the jury foreman in the Apple v. Samsung case conducted himself improperly during the jury selection process.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan has been one of the more visible members of the jury, speaking with numerous media agencies about the case and the billion-dollar verdict awarded in the case.

NewImage
Koh said she will look into the matter during a December 6 hearing. As part of her inquiry, Koh said she will require Apple to disclose what information the company's lawyers knew about the jury foreman.

[…]

Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan didn't disclose during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, his former employer. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung maintains Hogan should have informed the court about the case.
Though the jury trial was finished earlier this year, Apple and Samsung's courtroom drama does not look to be abating any time soon.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

23 months ago
give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.
Rating: 18 Votes
23 months ago
stock is lowering......shake up in the ranks...now this decision will be thrown out cause Hogan liked talking. Karma is a bitch apple!
Rating: 15 Votes
23 months ago

samsung -> hire outsider -> outsider contacts foreman -> give him 10 mil to say he did his own research outside the case.


Seriously?

Talk about tin foil hats.

I won't give my opinion on the merits of the case. I will say that there was quite a bit that I find questionable about the foreman and how the jury deliberated.

And if this were a criminal court case and you were the defendant - I don't believe anyone here would want a jury member who had any remote/tangential bias.

A fair trial is a fair trial. And if Samsung (or Apple!) didn't get one - they are entitled to one.
Rating: 12 Votes
23 months ago

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.


That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.


Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.
Rating: 11 Votes
23 months ago
Since this guy went on National television I said this will bite Apple in the ass... just watch..
Rating: 10 Votes
23 months ago

Lol
As for the judge wanting everything apple knew about the foreman that is weird. As far as I know you are not required to disclose information about jurors during jury selection.

Again if he did not actually lie there is nothing here but poor lawyering by Samsung.


You're the expert on everything is seems. Publishing. Patents. Law. Jury selection. Verdicts. etc. There doesn't seem to be a topic you don't try and school others on.

Fact is - it's just your opinion. No better or worse than anyone else's. Quite condescending however.
Rating: 9 Votes
23 months ago

Whether he conducted himself improperly or not, Samsung is still 100% guilty of ripping off Apple. And besides, he didn't do noting wrong anyways.


In your opinion. But that hardly matters as it's up to the courts.
Rating: 8 Votes
22 months ago

As usual, you and your Samsung posse always seem to take everything I say as a fact rather then conjecture, then its on you.


You initially made a statement of fact. If all your doing is offering your opinion, then it's been shown false by facts posted in rebuttal of it pages ago, why are you still arguing ?

Plain : you posted a fact, got told it was wrong, shown it was wrong, and told where to find evidence to back it up if you still believe it true. Now that you can't, you go all "ad homimem" with the "Samsung posse" (what's that anyway ? A samsung posse ?) and say "hey, it was all an opinion".

Well guess what, your opinion wasn't based in reality and reality just hit you like a 3 ton truck. Deal and stop wasting our time.
Rating: 6 Votes
23 months ago

Thank you. However, it appears the contention that the foreman presented "evidence" outside of that presented in the case is being misinterpreted. The foreman appears to have explained a conceptual thought, not present evidence. Evidence is fact based, concept is abstract based and subjective.


I think it's being argued (I'm not 100% sure) that his experience with patents and him having this "epiphany" on prior art based on those patents is questionable. Not only is it being argued he was wrong with his assessment but that he then "taught" the jurors this incorrect analogy.

So I believe when they say he presented evidence - it's was his "model" for determining prior art which was irrelevant to the case, etc.

Someone can definitely correct me as I am simplifying it I am sure. And from memory ;)
Rating: 6 Votes
23 months ago

That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.



Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.


Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence. That is not presented in his interview or this article. And with regard to your employment advice to the previous poster's comment, it appears that you might want to avoid the legal field yourself.
Rating: 6 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]