Samsung cere anularea procesului de 1.05 miliarde de dolari castigat de Apple deoarece presedintele juriului ar fi influentat verdictul

  A trecut mai bine de o luna de cand Samsung a pierdut in SUA un proces intentat celor de la Apple, verdictul final rezultand in obligatia de a plati 1.05 miliarde de dolari catre Apple si rusinea de a se dovedi ca a incalcat brevete de inventie ale americanilor. Desi Samsung a facut apel impotriva acelei decizii, avocatii sai sustin acum ca Velvin Hogan, presedintele juriului care a dat verdictul, ar fi influentat decizia celorlalti jurati, el pierzand un proces impotriva celor de la Seagate acum 19 ani, insa asta nu este tot, deoarece avocatul care a declansat acel proces ar fi acum casatorit cu unul dintre avocatii ce lucreaza la firma care a reprezentat Samsung in procesul cu Apple.

Samsung said foreman Velvin 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 Inc. Samsung has a “substantial strategic relationship” with Seagate and 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, the Suwon, South Korea-based company said in a filing yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California.

  Samsung are argumente solide, mai ales ca Seagate este unul dintre partenerii sai strategici, insa presedintele juriului se apara spunand ca el a fost intrebat doar daca a avut procese in ultimii 10 ani de zile. Avand in vedere ca acel proces a pornit in anul 1993, nu era obligat sa il dezvaluie, insa sustine ca ar fi facut-o daca ar fi fost intrebat expres despre acest lucru. Juratul este dispus sa declare in fata curtii ca nu a ascuns nimic inaintea inceperii procesului, cei de la Samsung au desigur alta parere si daca nu au dreptate, atunci acesta este doar un nou motiv de a iesi “curati” desi cativa oameni au decis altceva.

Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there was any misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential jurors required disclosure of any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years — and that the 1993 bankruptcy and related litigation involving Seagate fell well outside that time range. Hogan said yesterday’s filing has him wondering whether Samsung “let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.”