close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Samsung vs Apple bombshell. Jury foreman worked for Seagate, sued by them.

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Gallium, Oct 3, 2012.

  1. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17

  2. kensb2

    kensb2 pistol n00b

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Apache, OK
    Tagged, waiting for some of the lawyer types here to chime in on this....
     
  3. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,146
    Likes Received:
    15
    That is an interesting one. On the surface I'd say there is certainly the appearance of possible bias.

    However, If I were to hold a grudge against every investor of every company I've ever worked for or been wronged by... I'd have to be a very very angry guy.

    Every single juror probably has Samsung and/or Apple stock in their 401ks, does that make them biased?
     
  4. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17

    Except he was asked during jury selection, and having to file bankruptcy by a company, and then sit on a trial as jury foreman for their largest shareholder will never pass any sniff test.
     
  5. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,146
    Likes Received:
    15
    True.
     
  6. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    13,156
    Likes Received:
    759
    Location:
    Dallas TX
    I think the weakness in Samsung's argument is timing. If memory serves Samsung was not a big investor in Seagate when the guy was sued.

    However, it appears he is a turd for not fessing up. It's also true that people compartmentalize things and maybe he didn't recognize the problem.

    Also, lawyers sell harder than starving used car salesmen. It'll be interesting to see how this goes.
     
  7. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,146
    Likes Received:
    15
    To be perfectly honest, I have no idea who the investors are in half of the companies I deal with. If he is anything like me, It is entirely plausible the guy had no idea Samsung bought a majority of Seagate.
     
  8. uhlawpup

    uhlawpup Gentle Soul

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,413
    Likes Received:
    1,583
    Location:
    Houston
    Methinks the grapes were a bit tart on the tongue.

    Or perhaps straws were needed but Samsung's grasp was wanting.

    We must bite the apple only once for fairness to prevail.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
  9. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    13,156
    Likes Received:
    759
    Location:
    Dallas TX
    Agreed.
     
  10. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    13,156
    Likes Received:
    759
    Location:
    Dallas TX
    Agreed - and just looked it up. Seagate bought Samsung's HDD unit last year.
     
  11. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17

    It does not matter. It's like being asked "have you ever been arrested by the police?". It does not matter if he was, but by another agency.

    He was asked if he'd ever been involved in a lawsuit, and (apparently) said no.

    Everything so far posted from my phone, any errors - grammatical, factual or other will be fixed once I get back to the mother-ship).
     
  12. Taphius

    Taphius

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    The groklaw excerpt is pretty damning
     
  13. RWBlue

    RWBlue Mr. CISSP, CISA CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    Messages:
    23,566
    Likes Received:
    855
    +1

    I am a computer guy and I didn't know. Then again, I haven't been sued by Apple, Seagate or Samsung.
     
  14. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17

    Again, I agree with you too, but if you are on a jury for a case (example) Cisco vs 3COM, or Microsoft vs Oracle, and you are asked during vior dire (again, example) if you have ever been involved in a lawsuit, and say no...and it later comes out after trial that you were involved in a lawsuit with HP, which forced you into bankruptcy...and that same company purchased the entire division for one of the companies on the docket...it would not pass a sniff test.

    That is their contention - not that the guy didn't know who was in tech bed with whom, but that he obfuscated or lied when asked about any potentially conflicts or relevance to the proceedings.
     
  15. airmotive

    airmotive Tin Kicker

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,887
    Likes Received:
    1,826
    Location:
    Debris Field
    Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Samsung lawyers knew about this guy's background all along...and just kept that info in their back pocket in case their trial went pear-shaped. (which it did in spectacular fashion).
     
  16. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    28,685
    Likes Received:
    17

    No, because it is much harder to unring a rung bell. :)

    They are indeed grasping at straws, but that is their right to appeal the ruling, using any technicality, or miscarriage (real, imaginary or perceived) of justice.
     
  17. johnd

    johnd

    Joined:
    May 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    The high tech business is one of the most incestuous businesses around so it should be no surprise that probably any nexus could be made to any player by any other player in that business.
    The real issue should be that the trial was correct and that a decision was made on the premise that all the evidence was presented.
    That we have a litigation delivery system, that we have a courts system and we dont have a justice system is secondary to this case.
     
  18. Hyksos

    Hyksos

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,014
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    Jupiter/Miami, FL
    Plus you get more billable hours that way!

    If you win, you win. If you lose, well, you know that you got a whole slew of stuff to appeal with. This crap can drag on forever. There was a REAL case down here in Miami in front of the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal recently about a woman who bought a used car in 2003, and found out that the carfax had an erroneous mileage report on it or something.

    Essentially, there was a $700 discrepancy between what she paid and what she should have paid. Well, in 2011 (8 years later)...the lady had put 70k miles on the car, was still driving it, and had an attorney arguing in front of 3 appellate judges that she should be entitled to damages because of a $700 discrepancy on a car that she has since driven 70k. So yeah, even the judges pointed this out.

    I doubt the Apple/Samsung case is over. There's still potential for years of remands, new trials, and new appeals.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  19. brisk21

    brisk21

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Michigan
    Wow. Its so crazy how they are battling eachother in court, but do business with one another at the same time. Samsung makes the retina displays, and God knows what else. Its all silly though. People that are gonna buy the Iphone, are gonna buy the Iphone whether Samsung copys it or not. Im about to go get the Samsung Galaxy S3!!