Apple
Ping!
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Posted on 08/01/2016 9:35:52 AM PDT by Swordmaker
REUTERS/ANDREW KELLY - A federal judge has thrown out a verdict requiring Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to pay VirnetX Holding Corp (VHC.A) $625.6 million for infringing four patents relating to Internet security technology, causing VirnetX's share price to plunge.
VirnetX shares were down $1.93, or 44.6 percent, at $2.40 in Monday morning trading, after earlier falling to $2.14.
In a decision late Friday, U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas said it was unfair to Apple that two VirnetX lawsuits had been combined into a single trial.
He said jurors may have been confused by more than 50 references to the earlier case, though it contained "incredibly similar" issues, and deferred improperly to the prior jury's findings when it found Apple's liable for willful infringement.
"The repeated references to the prior jury verdict in the consolidated case resulted in an unfair trial," Schroeder wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Does anyone monitor a judges stock positions for shorts, etc. or does it require a whistle-blower?
Notice the implicit assumption: Jurors are not within their authority to decide guilt or innocence on an issue, they are simply not allowed to cite a prior jury's findings as a basis for their own decisions. (Highly ironic, considering how the judiciary worships "precedence".)
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve always thought that “precedence” applied very strictly to judges’ decisions and attempts to influence a jury’s decision by reference to previous rulings or convictions was a no-no.
Sounds to me as if some great legal minds for VirnetX tried for two bites at the Apple (yeah, I know it’s a terrible pun) and just got bit on the a$$ instead.
Terrible thing to behold.
/sarc (plus extended and robust laughter.)
The previous jury's decision was invalidated by an appeals court, which sent it back for a new trial. Ergo, what the previous jury did was not germane to the new trial. The Judge kept slapping the VirtnetX attorneys down for repeatedly referring to the previous judgement in the presence of the new jury, a big no-no. It got so bad he's declared a mistrial and now separated the cases. Apple may argue that THREE times on the same issues constitutes barratry, especially when it results in defending at four trials now.
Precedent applies to questions of law. Juries exist to consider questions of fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.