AllThingsD is reporting that Apple has responded to Samsung's claim that jury foreman Velvin Hogan conducted himself improperly during jury selection for the Samsung v. Apple trial. Hogan is under examination for his failure to disclose a previous legal dispute with Seagate, his former employer and one of Samsung's partners. In November, Judge Lucy Koh said she would "consider the questions" of whether Hogan conducted himself improperly.
Apple does not accuse juror Velvin Hogan of misconduct — because there was none — so what Apple knew and when regarding Mr. Hogan’s lawsuit with Seagate nearly two decades ago is irrelevant to any issue raised by Samsung’s post-trial motions. Apple does not contend that any past relationship between Mr. Hogan and Seagate, or any lawsuit between them, is anything remotely close to support a challenge for cause.
Hogan has been one of the more visible members of the jury, speaking with a myriad of news organizations about the decision in the case, which concluded earlier this year. The dispute over Hogan's behavior represents one more incident in the ongoing legal drama between Apple and Samsung.
Top Rated Comments
Exhibit A mentionned in the disclosure : http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2176ExA.pdf
Not really anything interesting here, it's a one-sided reply to a motion. Much more interesting is that Judge Koh granted full public disclosure of the HTC/Apple licensing terms, except for pricing and royalties which will remain sealed (Samsung lawyers get to see it, not the general public) :
So we'll get to know exactly which IP (as in patents) HTC is licensing from Apple and if these patents are the same used against Samsung or not.
The interesting developments are scheduled for the 6th of December, when Judge Koh hears both parties motions for Summary Judgement and Samsung's motion for a new trial.
And also failed to recognize proper prior art rules of the USPTO, whereas the Jury found that the Rubber Band patent was valid even though Samsung presented prior art for it, but 2 months later, the USPTO found it invalid in light of the prior art :
This is a serious black eye as far as the Jury's whole decision goes, it really hurts the credibility of their work.
I'm curious as well, since there really isn't anything about Samsung here, it's a motion filed by Apple after Samsung filed a motion to compel them to disclose their prior knowledge of the Jury foreman's lawsuit with Seagate.
Or maybe I'm just curious to see how people will manage to yet again turn this thread into a *****torm of insults rather than discuss the actual facts behind the case. Good job on already trying to trainwreck this thread.
Samsung is the greatest company in the world. Apple has run out of ideas and found itself in a rut. Now all they can do to compete in the market is sue the better competition for having better ideas than they do.
The Galaxy S III is the best phone in the world. The iPhone 5 is a piece of aluminum junk that scratches easily and breaks if you even look at it wrong. Only stupid Apple fanboys want an iPhone 5 because they're obsessed with Steve Jobs and his stupid childish opinions on competition.
THERE! SAMSUNG FANBOY POST! YOU HAPPY NOW? LETS MOVE ON!
Where is this "trolling" you're accusing me of ? I posted links to the court documents filed by Apple, posted another link to another judge decision about the HTC agreement being made public, which would be interesting for people to know.
How is posting links to material of the lawsuit "trolling" exactly ? Trolling would be... hum... calling people trolls and fanboys of companies without providing any discussion. That would be pure trolling.
I haven't seen a single Samsung owner post in this thread yet about how his phone is better than any other phone, so maybe you'd need to point out these Samsung fanboys for us, because otherwise, I think you're just suffering from persecution complex.
Or a fishing expedition by Samsung to find any possible way to have the verdict of the jury quashed? Now, was this man asked about any possible conflicts, aside from the fact that he had experience with patent law trials? And why would that have made him prejudiced against Samsung? "A partner of?" Why stop there? There have been Seagate drives in Apple computers. Maybe it gave him a prejudice against Apple or the Man in the Moon. Unless they come up with more of this than meets the eye, this is just the usual kind of kibbitzing that happens after you lose a billion dollars.
Innovate don't litigate?