Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 13:47 UTC
Legal "Samsung has now filed an unredacted version of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it. It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of 'implied bias' and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous 'evidence' of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure." It's a treasure trove of courtroom drama, this. Like this one: Hogan got sued by his former employer Seagate in 1993, causing him to go bankrupt. The lawyer in said case is now married to one of the partners of the law firm representing Samsung in this case. Samsung seems to implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - argue that Hogan had a score to settle in this case, because - get this - Samsung has been Seagate's largest shareholder since last year. Hogan failed to disclose the Seagate lawsuit during voire dire, which is a pretty serious matter. No matter whose side you're on, this is John Grisham-worthy.
Thread beginning with comment 537467
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Clutching at straws
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Clutching at straws"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

They have an almost impeccable track record on the stuff they report

I beg to differ, they have screwed it more than once and never taking it back.


Examples?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Clutching at straws
by Hiev on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 20:52 in reply to "RE[6]: Clutching at straws"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Let's start with this one:

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jul-31.html

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Clutching at straws
by TechGeek on Thu 4th Oct 2012 03:47 in reply to "RE[7]: Clutching at straws"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I'm sorry, but you point out bias in a groklaw article by using an article from de Icaza who has a personal beef with the site? The article you point to is also an editorial, and as such contains the authors opinion. You seem to think that opinions and bias are the same thing. They're not. Editorials are opinion pieces. Like the opinion or not. Bias occurs when facts are distorted or left out to reflect the interests of the author. While PJ is certainly opinionated, she does a fairly good job of separating fact from her opinions on the case.

In fact, if you read the site regularly, you would see she often makes positive statements about the law team from the "other side" of the case. She also is usually very honest about the judges as well, pointing out the good and bad no matter which way they rule.

So while all authors have some bias, I don't understand the disdain for the site that exists. At the very least, the site provides unedited and search-able copies of most of the court documents.

Edited 2012-10-04 03:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: Clutching at straws
by jared_wilkes on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 21:22 in reply to "RE[6]: Clutching at straws"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

How 'bout taking a juror mentioning his last court experience as an answer to the question of "have you ever been involved in a legal proceeding" as a lie and violation of voire dire?

I can't see how any rational person can make that leap without already having a conclusion they want to occur already set in their head.

Edited 2012-10-03 21:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Clutching at straws
by Tony Swash on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 22:48 in reply to "RE[7]: Clutching at straws"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The plot thickens.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108832665/12-04-30-Apple-Samsung-Teksler-...

One of the more notable documents filed with Judge Lucy Koh's court in the Apple versus Samsung post-trial motions is a letter from Apple intellectual property licensing director Boris Teskler to his equivalent at Samsung, Seongwoo Kim. The letter outlines a reciprocal patent agreement more in line with actual fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, rather than Samsung's proposed 2.4 percent rate of the entire device's purchase price.

Apple offered to license its FRAND UMTS patents, provided that Samsung "reciprocally agrees to this same, common royalty base, and same methodological approach to royalty rate, in licensing its declared-essential patents to Apple." Apple's estimates placed the price at $0.33 per device per royalty for use of the Apple patent portfolio, with the rate applied "to all Samsung units that Apple has not otherwise licensed." Apple requested a response by May 7, 2012, and no agreement was made.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Clutching at straws
by renox on Thu 4th Oct 2012 13:05 in reply to "RE[7]: Clutching at straws"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

How 'bout taking a juror mentioning his last court experience as an answer to the question of "have you ever been involved in a legal proceeding" as a lie and violation of voire dire?


Because he avoided telling about his other court experiences?
A lie by omission is a lie.

Reply Parent Score: 3