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 537604
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Clutching at straws
by TechGeek on Fri 5th Oct 2012 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Clutching at straws"
Member since:

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

RE[13]: Clutching at straws
by Hiev on Fri 5th Oct 2012 14:29 in reply to "RE[12]: Clutching at straws"
Hiev Member since:

Yeah, you are right It was me confusing the article. Sorry.

Reply Parent Score: 2