Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

More...
AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

More...
AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

More...
OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 04 October 2012 15:44

Apple versus Samsung jury foreman mislead the court

Written by Nick Farrell



Samsung appeal makes case look like mistrial


It is starting to look like the Apple versus Samsung trail might have to be redone as the jury foreman may have mislead his fellows. The Judge overseeing the appeal has allowed Samsung's appeal papers to be made public, something the company did not want to do.

It turns out that one of the reasons Samsung wants the case thrown out is because of the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan. It calls Hogan untruthful and accuse him of "implied bias" and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous "evidence" of his own during jury deliberations.

Before the case Hogan promised that he would not be influenced by previous cases. But Hogan was asked during jury selection whether he’d been involved in lawsuits and didn’t tell the judge that he had filed for bankruptcy in 1993 and had been sued by his former employer, Seagate Technology in 1993. He later told the media that he had used his own patent trademark case as a way of sifting through the evidence quickly.

But Samsung points out that what might have influenced Hogan's behaviour was case he had with Seagate. Not only did Samsung has a “substantial strategic relationship” with Seagate, but the lawyer who filed the complaint against Hogan is married to an attorney who works for the firm that represented Samsung in the trial against Apple. This explains why Samsung wanted its appeal details kept secret from the world. Basically it is accusing Hogan of lying his way onto the jury and getting revenge against his former employers by manipulating a jury to award major damages against one of its important business partners.

Samsung said that if Hogan had revealed his Seagate connection in the pre-jury questioning he would have been barred from being on the jury. It also said that once on the Jury Hogan broke his promise to ignore his previous legal experience. Indeed he even bragged about it to the media.

Nick Farrell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments