Samsung: Jury foreman in the Apple case lied!

Samsung are doing everything they can to clear their name in the patent wars following the losing verdict and subsequent fine they have to pay Apple. Apple hasn’t been taking the win lightly either, seriously looking to twist the blade they’ve buried deep into the back of Samsung.

Well, we can only imagine the events that will transpire, if the following claims by Samsung prove to be true. They believe that jury foreman Velvin Hogan lied misled the officials to get onto the jury. Bold claims indeed, so what proof do they have?

Samsung’s legal team have had time to pick apart Hogan’s legal misstatements. Hogan stated that design patents are based on “look and feel” and that preceding art must be “interchangeable.” Samsung’s response to that:

These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room.

Samsung go on to say that Hogan disclosed only being involved in one lawsuit, leaving out the fact that he was sued by his former employers, Seagate. And who owns part of Seagate? Yep, you guessed it; Samsung. That suit caused Hogan to file for bankruptcy. Samsung went on to add:

Mr Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike.

Can Samsung’s legal team dig up anymore? Yes they can! The also claim that Hogan is more pro-patent than he let on. Hogan told the Verge:

Except for my family, it [jury service] was the high point of my career... you might even say my life.

To be fair, the nature and profile of this trial would rank high on any of the persons involved list, but it’s what Hogan went on to add that is more damning. He wanted to be satisfied that:

…this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to.

If those aren't 'strong feelings,' what are? When confronted with the accusations of dishonesty, Hogan has stated that he disclosed all the information he needed to. As the courts required him to divulge any previous cases within the past 10 years, he felt it wasn’t necessary to detail the Seagate litigation as it happened in 1993, some 19 years previous.

Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that. I answered every question the judge asked me... [Samsung] had every opportunity to question me.

Samsung are exploring every option available to them; the most realistic being a request to reduce the $1.05 billion fine by 95% since "just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identify visual appeal as why they purchased a phone." Although this is an argument Samsung has already presented during the trial.

Did we also mention that Samsung are now suing Apple for patent infringement, including the iPhone 5 in the case?

Source: Ars Technica | Image courtesy of nicoleeves.wordpress.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

WSJ says Apple has begun iPad mini production

Next Story

Nokia Lumia 510 caught on video, will reportedly cost $150

65 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Not surprised one bit. Most of the outcome of the trial was BS. And even tho Apple won, they are not getting enough compensation for damages and asking that Samsung pay more.

More like Seagate owns what used to be the Samsung hard drives. and WD got the Hitachi drives. and most of the good drives have samsung memory chips on their motherboards. Course main problem here is many Seagate drives are in Apple computers.

There is the other side of the story, he was married to one of the lawyers who was involved in the case. The lack of openness from them holds more legal issues as they can lose there legal license, and the firm can be fined. The case could also be pushed in to default judgement because Samsung didn't disclose they had prior knowledge of the jury and didn't raise it, potential setting up an attempt to have a automatic appeal.

thejohnnyq said,
There is the other side of the story, he was married to one of the lawyers who was involved in the case. The lack of openness from them holds more legal issues as they can lose there legal license, and the firm can be fined. The case could also be pushed in to default judgement because Samsung didn't disclose they had prior knowledge of the jury and didn't raise it, potential setting up an attempt to have a automatic appeal.

Are you sure you are reading all of this correctly. Every article I've read on this in the past couple of minutes states that the lawyer who was hired by Seagate to sue Hogan is married to someone at the law firm hired by Samsung. Furthermore, it doesn't even mention if this person even worked on this case.

thejohnnyq said,
There is the other side of the story, he was married to one of the lawyers who was involved in the case. The lack of openness from them holds more legal issues as they can lose there legal license, and the firm can be fined. The case could also be pushed in to default judgement because Samsung didn't disclose they had prior knowledge of the jury and didn't raise it, potential setting up an attempt to have a automatic appeal.

If there were any legal constraints holding him back from speaking the truth, he shouldn't have been there. There is no law that says they have to disclose that they had prior knowledge of the jury. By holding it back they did nothing to effect the case in their favor before the ruling.

Suggest all you folks head over to Groklaw, much better analysis of this situation. I think juror misconduct is a very real possibility here, based on the info so far. Actual documents show that he was indeed asked about all lawsuits, not just one 10 years or less in age, as he contends.

I notice how ridiculous this story is. An American court gives preference to an American company over a South Korean company. FYI to the whole world, Apple is a very average electronics maker. They just encase things in nice looking shells. Its just because its American it must somehow be better than what the rest of us idiots can put together. It was like Blackberry coming out with querty keypads like 10 years after Nokia and North Americans thinking that was somehow amazing.

Samsung lost/won/had-a-draw a similar case they brought against Apple in South Korea, Their homeland.. ended with them getting a buch of their devices banned too..

Iridium said,
I notice how ridiculous this story is. An American court gives preference to an American company over a South Korean company. FYI to the whole world, Apple is a very average electronics maker. They just encase things in nice looking shells. Its just because its American it must somehow be better than what the rest of us idiots can put together. It was like Blackberry coming out with querty keypads like 10 years after Nokia and North Americans thinking that was somehow amazing.

What are you babbling about? No one is saying that. Companies are multinational, this has nothing to do with any country. It's about who has the most high priced lawyers.

Even if he shouldn't have been there..

He wasn't the only vote.. Samsung lost, big time, so the judgement will stand.. They should stop being so butthurt and move on like all other companies involved in legal battles have done before.

Ryoken said,
Even if he shouldn't have been there..

He wasn't the only vote.. Samsung lost, big time, so the judgement will stand.. They should stop being so butthurt and move on like all other companies involved in legal battles have done before.

However, if you go back and read interviews with the jury members, they've stated that deliberations weren't really going anywhere because they were tied up tackling whether or not Apple's patents were even valid.

Then Hogan took over the reigns, made a speech about owning patents and such, and the jury moved past the validity arguments and arrived at the current judgement.

So if Hogan wasn't there, who knows what we would have right now.

Condere said,

However, if you go back and read interviews with the jury members, they've stated that deliberations weren't really going anywhere because they were tied up tackling whether or not Apple's patents were even valid.

Then Hogan took over the reigns, made a speech about owning patents and such, and the jury moved past the validity arguments and arrived at the current judgement.

So if Hogan wasn't there, who knows what we would have right now.


Without Hogan, samsung would have won. Patents and such are evil and should be destroyed.

soldier1st said,

Without Hogan, samsung would have won. Patents and such are evil and should be destroyed.

May not have won, but the outcome wouldn't of been so bad. Samsung is at fault but not to the extent apple thinks.

soldier1st said,

Without Hogan, samsung would have won. Patents and such are evil and should be destroyed.
Funny you say that, cause Samsung has been suing over parents for decades..

neonspark said,
just pay up, ditch android and start innovating. easy.

You mean 'innovating' like Apple? I.e. steal other people's designs and ideas and claim it as their own? Yeah, no.

neonspark said,
just pay up, ditch android and start innovating. easy.

You, sir, have never used the Galaxy S3 then. My Apple friends all marvel at the cool INNOVATIVE features it has when compared to their iPhone.

Fezmid said,

You, sir, have never used the Galaxy S3 then. My Apple friends all marvel at the cool INNOVATIVE features it has when compared to their iPhone.

Yup! Water sound effects. Or S-Beam so you can share playlists on the go.... epic. Too innovative! Bet Apple are kicking themselves wishing they had invented bigger screens and stylus's like Samsung.

rpsgc said,

You mean 'innovating' like Apple? I.e. steal other people's designs and ideas and claim it as their own? Yeah, no.


Apple always steals other peoples innovations and makes it thier own. Plus, they overcharge like crazy. Oh, and did i mention, There ridiculous heavy restrictions are a detriment to society. People/Companies lie about everything cuzz thats how you succeed in life(being a low life scumbag who should be shot and be hanged till the sun burns your corpse away).

JessJess said,

Bet Apple are kicking themselves wishing they had invented bigger screens

Yes, because the iPhone 5 totally doesn't have a bigger screen or anything...

JessJess said,

Yup! Water sound effects. Or S-Beam so you can share playlists on the go.... epic. Too innovative! Bet Apple are kicking themselves wishing they had invented bigger screens and stylus's like Samsung.

We all know you fap to the 'whoosh' sound effect your iToy makes all the time. Galaxy S3 users can atleast actually share playlists with real friends, unlike thieving backstabbing elitist iFantards who usually live and die alone.

neonspark said,
just pay up, ditch android and start innovating. easy.

Wow, seriously Neogaf, can we get an ignore button? The trolls are getting annoying.

NeoPogo said,
Samsung will take any American and make them look like the bad guy. BOYCOTT SAMSUNG!!

Apple sells chinese products ... BOYCOTT APPLE!!!.

NeoPogo said,
Samsung will take any American and make them look like the bad guy. BOYCOTT SAMSUNG!!

What in the **** are you on about?

NeoPogo said,
While the majority of the money being made is sent overseas to South Korea. Yea, that is helping out the US. - NOT!

You should take economics if you think that way.

NeoPogo said,
While the majority of the money being made is sent overseas to South Korea. Yea, that is helping out the US. - NOT!

What are you talking about. Samsung plant is here and helping the US economy by providing jobs and then the workers pump the money back in to the economy. Yes, some money goes back overseas, but not as much as you think.

NeoPogo said,
Samsung will take any American and make them look like the bad guy. BOYCOTT SAMSUNG!!

Huh? Samsung is not making anything up so fail to see how they are making this guy out to be bad. He did it to himself.

if i was on the trial i would gladly say i lied to see if i could get my bonus from samsung lol
when you get fined a billion i bet they would be more than happy to give someone a million or 2 behind closed doors..

I'm a morally corrupt lier..
check please
Your average person does worse for far less on a daily basis !
Anyone that succeeds in Business, Management etc are usually weazly slime balls
and the kind of person that disappears when there is work to do and reappears when its time to receive credit for a job well done. If you watch closely these people usually are masters at flapping their gums and go "on tour" at their work place like they are some celebrity not required to get their hands dirty. And they excel at this because the people that do this are usually the ones who have the power to promote the same type of person.
And these big business execs are the bloody elite of useless over paid douchebags
so no.. I don't have any moral issues with selling my testimony.
The real question would be could you beat the next douche in line before he does.

I know its a rant but I've worked with soo many people in so many occupations and think truly genuine hard workers are like a some mythical creature but you will trip over the idiots that are far too quick to brag about how great they are while YOU are working and THEY are standing there talking.. telling someone about how great or interesting their bs is.

I am Not PCyr said,

Anyone that succeeds in Business, Management etc are usually weazly slime balls
and the kind of person that disappears when there is work to do and reappears when its time to receive credit for a job well done.

You forgot law my friend

I'm confused as to how a jury was chosen for this case. It seems obscenely unlikely that someone with his background would randomly get called and make their way through a jury pool.

threetonesun said,
I'm confused as to how a jury was chosen for this case. It seems obscenely unlikely that someone with his background would randomly get called and make their way through a jury pool.

Lawyers can reject jurors; why did not Samsung legal team did it?

Fritzly said,

Lawyers can reject jurors; why did not Samsung legal team did it?


because this guy failed to mention his history with Seagate/Samsung. The background search most likely didnt take place until after the trial in order to appeal

jerzdawg said,

because this guy failed to mention his history with Seagate/Samsung. The background search most likely didnt take place until after the trial in order to appeal

It's unusual that this guy, if called to the stand and admitting that he knew something of patent law would have gotten picked at all.

Most lawyers would prefer jurors that come in with a blank slate that they can sway.

Fritzly said,

Lawyers can reject jurors; why did not Samsung legal team did it?

Each side only get x number of rejections. Perhaps they had exhausted all of theirs?

Condere said,

Each side only get x number of rejections. Perhaps they had exhausted all of theirs?

If so they have to deal with an unfriendly juror; this is the way the system works. You cannot expect to have all jurors in your favour, can you?

jerzdawg said,

because this guy failed to mention his history with Seagate/Samsung. The background search most likely didnt take place until after the trial in order to appeal

Not really; the article mentions that the Court required him to disclose any previous case involvement in the previous ten years; why Samsung legal team did not ask about anything before it? And besides, the background check is always performed during trials: if something illegal would appear they could have asked for a mistrial. To me it just seems that Samsung screwed up and now they are trying to climb on glasses; of course lawyers do not care, they bill by the hour.....

threetonesun said,

It's unusual that this guy, if called to the stand and admitting that he knew something of patent law would have gotten picked at all.

Most lawyers would prefer jurors that come in with a blank slate that they can sway.

Actually it's nice to have a few knowledgable people in the pool. It prevents the entire jury from hitting the snooze button on the technical parts.

NastySasquatch said,

Actually it's nice to have a few knowledgable people in the pool. It prevents the entire jury from hitting the snooze button on the technical parts.

Sure, it's nice, but plenty of people end up on criminal juries with no concept of "beyond questionable doubt", so for this guy to end up on a patent case seems somewhat strange.

Condere said,

Each side only get x number of rejections. Perhaps they had exhausted all of theirs?

When there is more than a few bucks in play, we can be sure that all of the posible candidates for the jury were crossed examined by Apple and Samsung, this is more likely an "ace under the sleeve" from Samsung, since they had to agree to this guy in the first place.

Neobond said,
Doesn't the court ask if there is a conflict of interest at all? Clearly there is here.

Sure, they ask, and they assume whatever a person says is truthful. I don't think either side is allowed to go digging up your personal life unless they have extreme cause to do so

dagamer34 said,

Sure, they ask, and they assume whatever a person says is truthful. I don't think either side is allowed to go digging up your personal life unless they have extreme cause to do so


I would say a possible 1 Billion dollar fine is an "extreme cause".
And as the law states, isn't this purjury of the court - you know, illegal?

Eh the whole trial was a joke, lets just hope after a few more years of this crap its just cross licensing across the board. So everyone wins.

If the guy was only asked to mention cases he was involved in in the last ten years then he did nothing wrong (at least with regards to that specific question), and it's the court/legal system at fault for asking such a time-constrained question.

Hardcore Til I Die said,
If the guy was only asked to mention cases he was involved in in the last ten years then he did nothing wrong (at least with regards to that specific question), and it's the court/legal system at fault for asking such a time-constrained question.

Read the transcripts. He's not being honest. The judge asked if he had 'ever' been involved in a lawsuit. He only mentioned 1. He didn't mention specifics of any others.

So he was honest...just not entirely honest.

Ever does not imply a 10-year constraint. Also having been fired by a company (or at least a partial owner of a company) is cause for prejudice.

Shane Nokes said,

Read the transcripts. He's not being honest. The judge asked if he had 'ever' been involved in a lawsuit. He only mentioned 1. He didn't mention specifics of any others.

So he was honest...just not entirely honest.

Ever does not imply a 10-year constraint. Also having been fired by a company (or at least a partial owner of a company) is cause for prejudice.

I was just going by what the article said:

"When confronted with the accusations of dishonesty, Hogan has stated that he disclosed all the information he needed to. As the courts required him to divulge any previous cases within the past 10 years, he felt it wasn't necessary to detail the Seagate litigation as it happened in 1993, some 19 years previous."

Hardcore Til I Die said,

I was just going by what the article said:

"When confronted with the accusations of dishonesty, Hogan has stated that he disclosed all the information he needed to. As the courts required him to divulge any previous cases within the past 10 years, he felt it wasn't necessary to detail the Seagate litigation as it happened in 1993, some 19 years previous."

The court transcript states the question without any time limits and uses the word "ever" (as in stretching to infinity). I don't think there is any way to squirm out of this one.

dagamer34 said,

The court transcript states the question without any time limits and uses the word "ever" (as in stretching to infinity). I don't think there is any way to squirm out of this one.

Fair enough, yes he doesn't have an excuse for that.