Teen Hacker Banned From The Internet For Six Years

Judge Will Review If Apple/Samsung Jury Foreman Withheld Pertinent Info

from the probably-not dept

Fri, Nov 9th 2012 5:36pm — Mike Masnick

After the jury decision in the Apple/Samsung patent fight in the US came out, lots of people pointed to statements from the foreman of the jury, Vel Hogan, that raised serious questions about Hogan's understanding of the legal issues at play, especially pertaining to prior art. It also suggested possible bias. Still, even with all of that, it's very, very difficult to get a jury ruling thrown out on jury misconduct -- but Samsung has unveiled one bit of info that Judge Lucy Koh has now agreed to review: whether or not Hogan needed to reveal that he had a legal dispute with Seagate, a former Hogan employer, who is also a major strategic partner of Samsung. Koh is also asking Apple's lawyers to reveal if they knew this info, which Samsung's lawyers did not.

At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson.

While this is an interesting move, and worth watching, I doubt much will come out of it. Hogan did admit that he'd had legal issues in the past with a former employer, but no one delved into who or why.

During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation.

Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.

Again, most of this aspect is just a sideshow to the eventual long series of appeals that will come in this case -- and I doubt that the judge will find misconduct here. But just the fact that judge is considering it makes it worth following.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: jury misconduct, patents, trial, vel hogan
Companies: apple, samsung

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

artp (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:36pm

"Bring your own expert to work" Day
If Hogan causes trouble for this trial for anything, it will probably be for acting as his own expert in the jury room.

As PJ pointed out at Groklaw, it doesn't give the opposing side a chance to challenge or rebut his arguments.

And from listening to Hogan and compatriots after the trial, Hogan really believes in his abilities - and so did the jury - over and above what was presented in the courtroom.

We will see what really happens with this, if anything, as the bar for jury misconduct is very high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), 10 Nov 2012 @ 5:53am
  
  Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
  This is what most articles seem to be missing... the foreman acting like an expert witness, and not being a juror. Personally I think the Seagate lawsuit is a red herring.
  
  If this judge has any respectability left, she'll definitely rule for jury bias.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 10 Nov 2012 @ 3:28pm
    
    Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
    The real problem wasn't the questions that he lied in response to but the questions that he wasn't asked. These are questions that now should be part of the standard vor dire process for ALL patent cases.
    
    They basically boil down to "Are you a wannabe patent troll?".
    
    The Seagate lawsuit nonsense is a sideshow, a distraction.
    
    The real problem is that he had a Grade AAA prime cut conflict of interest. He has a vested interest in lowering the bar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2012 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
      We're going to need to bring in James Cameron on this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2012 @ 6:36am
  
  Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
  "acting as his own expert in the jury room"
  
  The case should be tossed based upon this item alone, but what about the jury not even coming close to following the judges' orders? IIRC, the jury was given specific items to review, but the foreman decided they were not relevant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 10 Nov 2012 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
    Read up on Jury Nullification: it's perfectly fine to ignore a judge's wishes, provided that said ignoring is not illegal in and of itself (which I'm not sure how that would happen, to be honest).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ldne, 10 Nov 2012 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
      Just did, I don't see where you get that drivel from, it may not be illegal but it gives the judge grounds to throw out the verdict and start over, which is hardly "fine". Also, many courts require consent to follow judges directives during the jury selection process. In this case, you have a clown with a conflict of interest and inflated sense of self falsely presenting himself as a "patent expert" to his fellow jurors and tampering with the outcome, it's pretty clear cut that the jury was compromised and therefore so was their verdict.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Tex Arcana (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 11:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
        Hell, the JUDGE has been compromised from the get-go, as an Apple whore. She needed to step down long ago.
        
        Perhaps our friend "Cosmo the God", aka "Fluffy IS Zuul", could correct this wrong.... and bring her down to the 99%-ER level, and book her a cardboard box at the Underpass Hotel... (�_(� �)_�)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tex Arcana (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
        .folder
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2012 @ 4:24am

The idea that 12 people should be allowed to give a insane amount of money away is fucked up.. They have no clue what they're talking about. I could say yeah I know what I'm doing to award a small amount "by their standards" like 5 million but really I have no damn clue how much 5 million is.

I wish I did and who knows I might hit it big on the poor mans lotto aka scratch tickets. I sure could use that 5 grand jackpot. My black friend told me that's what is known as being N***** rich lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  It's not like they just picked the numbers out of a hat. Not if they're correctly following the jury instructions at least.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2012 @ 9:28am

I think the bigger issue here is when Apple knew about it which they could have answered but elected not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]