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 537545
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Clutching at straws
by TechGeek on Thu 4th Oct 2012 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Clutching at straws"
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

OOXML? Are you serious? PJ was pretty much spot on about that steaming pile of crap. Microsoft pushed its standard through the ISO. Even now they don't conform to their own standard. In the process they also pretty much broke the ISO, causing a lot of problem for everyone.

And again, you point to a post by a crack pot who has a beef against PJ over a subject he is wholly invested in. And she wasn't wrong. Parts of .Net like ASP are still patent encumbered. Oh, and Moonlight, the beacon in the sky for the reason to everyone to use Mono, got cancelled.

Her original point still stands. Microsoft declared war on Linux, so why should anyone trust them. Its not like they would go around extorting money over vague and changing patent claims on software that is clearly open source. Oh wait.....

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[11]: Clutching at straws
by Hiev on Thu 4th Oct 2012 18:09 in reply to "RE[10]: Clutching at straws"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

You are so delusional, what "crap" are you talking about?

OOXML became an ISO standard, tell me, how did that affected ISO? and what with the fact MS didn't comply entirely with the specification? is not mandatory, just like no browser comply with HTML 5. MS implemented the requirements of the ISO, yeah, even fixing the part of the OOXML specification to make it more open, but hey, Groklaw's and you don't care or omit the history.

So don't try to tell me what happened cause I was also there reading Groklaw's non sense and the opinionated trolls that follow it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Clutching at straws
by Hiev on Thu 4th Oct 2012 18:11 in reply to "RE[10]: Clutching at straws"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

And again, you point to a post by a crack pot who has a beef against PJ over a subject he is wholly invested in. And she wasn't wrong. Parts of .Net like ASP are still patent encumbered. Oh, and Moonlight, the beacon in the sky for the reason to everyone to use Mono, got cancelled.

You are clueless, Groklaw was making statements not on ASP.NET or mono, it was making wrong statements on the MS PL, the open source license apache like licesen from MS, so, come back here when you actually read the article.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: Clutching at straws
by TechGeek on Fri 5th Oct 2012 02:35 in reply to "RE[11]: Clutching at straws"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I was taking your word for the gripe and not doing my fact checking. Guess I shouldn't have. Groklaw isn't even the target of that article. Pundit #1 as Miguel puts it, is Steven Vaughan-Nichols. His point was valid, as Miguel spends most of the post talking about how GNU had to battle the same concerns back in the day. He even confirms that the fear exists at Mono as they have rules about such things. Still, as Steven states, people can and do break rules. See the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit for examples of code transfer going both ways.

Pundit #2 appears to be Matt Asay. I am not sure if he is affiliated with Groklaw, but the article was originally posted to Cnet. And if you read the article, the very next line Matt writes after the quoted text is "In other words, it's not open source. But is it good for developers, anyway?" The article does not in any way say that "Microsoft open sourced .NET".

So who has the real axe to grind?

Reply Parent Score: 3