Following yesterday's hearing, Judge Koh appears set to reduce the $1.05B jury verdict levied...

This news story has 11 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

bobbobwhite Comments (1867)
 
So, any jury member who has been sued or filed suit can negate the judgement due to that? What? Hey, I ate a bad burger last night, so I will never eat again! That makes about as much sense as a new trial due to an old lawsuit by/against the jury foreman. Just nuts.
7 Dec 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like

chopchop0 Comments (1657)
 
Wow.... a reduction in the verdict amount rather than treble damages....

Sounds like a different outcomes than what many AAPL bulls on this site were predicting.
7 Dec 2012, 11:00 AM Reply Like

gensearch2 Comments (1097)
 
from the AP story ...

"Koh gave no indication on how she would rule on the sales ban request or by what amount she would cut from the $1 billion award. Samsung was demanding that she cut the award by more than half, but Koh gave no hint that she sided with that argument or Apple's separate argument for an increase in the award."

How the same author extracts out Koh appears ready to reduce the award is a bit of a logic problem. It reads that Koh didn't give any clues. How do you interpret no clues as to a reduction in an award? Which is what you would expect a judge to do before the decision was issued.
7 Dec 2012, 11:27 AM Reply Like

cgary6273 Comment (1)
 
Judges do a lot of jawboning before ruling... in the end, a good judge wants to be upheld on appeal and do the right thing. If the verdict is reduced, the chances of Samsung getting that overturned diminish.
7 Dec 2012, 11:35 AM Reply Like

rocback Comments (617)
 
If you read all the transcript, this article is misleading. While the judge did appear to be receptive to reducing a few of the items of damages, she also is considering tripling others.

In addition to that, she appeared to be leaning towards Apples request to issue an injunction on the products that infringed. Now while the injunction would only apply to the older Samsung items at issue, the same principals will apply to the Samsung Galaxy III that has just been added to the suit.

Finally, in a hugely important issue of oeverturning the entire verdict due to juro misconduct, the judge indicated she would not likely overturn the verdict due to jury impropriety. When the Samsung lawyer argued that, she asked him if he was so concerned, why didnt he ask more about the jurors employment with the employer who had a suit involving Samsung. The juror had fully disclosed that he did. It was Samsung lawyers fault that he didn't explore that further said the judge.
7 Dec 2012, 11:45 AM Reply Like

SidSilver Comments (417)
 
rocback

Any idea when the judge will give her decision?
7 Dec 2012, 01:10 PM Reply Like

Billtlaw Comments (3)
 
Full disclosure is essential to justice. Whether the lawyer should have gone further is not the point; the court has now an independent duty to determine whether this jurors failure to disclose or other actions unduly influenced the jurors decision and/ or resulting from his personal bias
7 Dec 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like

rocback Comments (617)
 
you don't understand the vior dire process. Once, a juror answers the intial question, it is up to the attorneys for the parties to explore further whatever they want to discuss. The Mercury News reported that the judge did not seem very interested in Samsungs argument on that issue that the jury foreman in the case had failed to disclose that he once was sued by his former employer, Seagate, which has a strategic relationship with Samsung. The foreman, Velvin Hogan, says he didn't talk about the matter because it occurred almost 20 years ago, and the jury instructions only required disclosure of litigation going back 10 years. The judge told the Samsung lawyer that he should have asked further questions if it was important. The judge will not suffer through another trial since it was Samsungs own fault.
7 Dec 2012, 01:58 PM Reply Like

SidSilver Comments (417)
 
@Billtlaw
" the court has now an independent duty to determine whether this jurors failure to disclose or other actions unduly influenced the jurors decision and/ or resulting from his personal bias"

You missed the point. The judge does not feel that it was a problem -- and it it truly was an issue Samsung should have raised it at that time.
7 Dec 2012, 01:08 PM Reply Like

$CLU Comments (202)
 
Ruh Roh!
Looks like the USPTO wants to weigh in on some of the patents.

http://engt.co/SEa8ud
7 Dec 2012, 04:24 PM Reply Like

rocback Comments (617)
 
That's merely a preliminary invalidation that happens all teh time. You need to understand that the USPTO generally invalidates as a rule because they only see the position of the challenger. The USPTO rarely will dismiss a challenge without even a hearing if there is ANY chance the patent could be permanently invalidated. Now Apple gets to present its side. These preliminary invalidations by the USTPO get overturned more than 60% of the time.
10 Dec 2012, 09:04 PM Reply Like