decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj Updated
Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 10:54 AM EST

Apple very much does not want to have to answer Samsung's question in its motion to compel about when Apple learned about the jury foreman's earlier litigation with Seagate. Here's a bit from its response [PDF]:
Samsung’s motion to compel Apple to disclose what it knew about juror Velvin Hogan fails because only Samsung—not Apple—accuses Mr. Hogan of misconduct. What Samsung knew about Mr. Hogan bears directly on whether Samsung waived any objection to Mr. Hogan because it knew or could have discovered the basis for its objection before the verdict. Apple does not accuse Mr. Hogan of misconduct so what Apple knew is irrelevant. Not surprisingly, Samsung is unable to cite a single case that holds that the opposing party’s knowledge is relevant to whether the objecting party waived jury misconduct objections. Nor has Samsung made the showing needed to obtain Apple’s attorney work product.
Maybe that lack of earlier cases on point is because no party has ever made Apple's bone-headed move to make the timing central to a case. Now that Apple did that, of course Samsung wants an answer. But it's up to the judge, who will decide based on the law but also based on how seriously she takes the accusation of jury misconduct. Jury misconduct is hard to make stick, so the odds favor Apple.

Samsung takes it seriously, however, and so if she won't compel Apple to answer, the appeals court can. This could go on for some time. It does look a little odd that Apple doesn't just say, "We learned about it after the verdict too." It looks especially odd, because if they learned of it earlier, and didn't tell the court, it could be serious for Apple and for the law firm, Samsung has claimed, which could explain the mocking tone Apple adopts, as if it's quite a stretch to call what the foreman did misconduct.

Odder still is the fact that Apple again says that Samsung could have learned about the Seagate litigation itself prior to the verdict. How do they know? Did Apple know? Refusing to answer such a simple question makes clear, to me anyway, that each side believes the other side has not fully told all it knew or knows yet.

The filings, so you can follow along:

2118 - Filed & Entered: 11/02/2012
OPPOSITION to ( [2108] MOTION to Compel Apple to Disclose the Circumstances and Timing of Its Discovery of Juror Information ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 11/2/2012) Modified text on 11/5/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

2119 - Filed & Entered: 11/02/2012
STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re [2105] Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Leave to File Stipulation Regarding Schedule for Post-Trial Depositions filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

2120 - Filed & Entered: 11/02/2012
NOTICE by Apple Inc. re [2047] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION--PREVIOUSLY FILED UNDER SEAL) (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Terry Musika (Public Redacted Version Previously Filed Under Seal), # (2) Exhibit 6 to Musika Decl., # (3) Exhibit 7 to Musika Decl., # (4) Exhibit 8 to Musika Decl., # (5) Exhibit 9 to Musika Decl., # (6) Exhibit 14 to Musika Decl., # (7) Exhibit 24 to Musika Decl., # (8) Exhibit 26 to Musika Decl., # (9) Exhibit 37 to Musika Decl., # (10) Exhibit 48 to Musika Decl., # (11) Exhibit 52 to Musika Decl., # (12) Exhibit 62 to Musika Decl., # (13) Exhibit 63 to Musika Decl., # (14) Declaration of Marylee Robinson, # (15) Exhibit 30 to Robinson Decl.)(Hung, Richard) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

2121 - Filed & Entered: 11/05/2012
EXHIBITS re [1985] Declaration in Support, Corrected Attachment 6 Cited in Paragraph 12 to Declaration of Philip W. Schiller in Support of Apple's Posttrial Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s)[1985]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 11/5/2012)

Apple's argument -- one that doesn't hold water with me -- goes like this:
Samsung knew that Mr. Hogan “had worked for Seagate,” as he disclosed in voir dire. (Tr. 191:20-192:2.) This is significant because if Samsung genuinely believed (as it now alleges) that its relationship with Seagate was so important that bias against Seagate could create bias against Samsung, then Samsung should have asked Mr. Hogan about his departure from Seagate and any negative experiences with Seagate. (See Dkt. No. 2050 at 1-2.) Had Samsung asked about Seagate, it would have discovered the dispute. Samsung failed to do so and thus waived any objections.
This makes little sense to me. Thinking that he might be biased would stem from knowledge that the two *sued* each other, or particularly that Seagate sued him, not that he worked for them. You certainly can hold a grudge against someone who sued you to take your house away from you, maybe until the day you die. But just working for a company doesn't make you hate them, usually. If anything, it might make you favor them in later litigation.

And if Samsung had asked about the circumstances of his leaving, that wouldn't have revealed anything pertinent either. He would likely have just answered that he was laid off. The lawsuit happened afterward, when the foreman failed to pay back a company loan, and given the way the foreman answered questions in voir dire, he could have answered all the questions without once mentioning the litigation. It's the kind of thing you'd have to know about to bring up, and if, as Samsung alleges, he was hiding it on purpose to get a seat on the jury, he would have continued to hide it no matter what Samsung asked, unless it was directly on point, as in "Did Seagate ever sue you?" And that's not a normal question anyone would think to ask in voir dire, unless they knew the answer already.

Now, this judge and I don't always reach identical conclusions from the same facts, and it's her decision that matters, so I can't predict a thing in this case. She may be influenced by Apple's arguments. Michael Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster wrote this, and he's mighty persuasive and has an appealing personality that most people would find a plus in any dispute. You kind of *want* him to be right. Even I do, and I don't think he is here. So that is always a factor when he shows up.

All I can say is that I don't think she *should* be influenced by it. And here's why: the public is watching. Some of us, probably a lot of us, have been deeply disturbed by this juror's behavior, and we'd very much like our faith in the legal system to be strengthened by what happens next, by how the court handles this issue. That's why I do Groklaw, to explain how the legal system works, with the hope that it will encourage confidence in it, and this case is very much not helping. So we'd like Apple to answer the question and let justice take its course, whichever way it turns out the full facts indicate. How can the public ever accept this jury's verdict as being fair or even plausible unless something is done to address the jury misconduct issue? A new trial with an untainted jury would solve that problem, even if they still found for Apple.

Apple makes a valid argument about Samsung knowing about the bankruptcy earlier than it says it knew about the Seagate litigation:

Contradicting its prior accusation that Mr. Hogan “failed to answer truthfully” by not disclosing the bankruptcy (Dkt. No. 2013 at 2), Samsung now argues that Mr. Hogan’s bankruptcy “did not involve litigation and was not responsive to any voir dire questioning.” (Dkt. No. 2108 at 5.) Samsung reversed course after finally admitting that it knew of the bankruptcy on the day of voir dire, suggesting that it never believed that Mr. Hogan should have disclosed the bankruptcy in response to a question about involvement in “a lawsuit,” but nevertheless argued for a position that it did not believe in an attempt to find some way to overturn the verdict.
It's also true, as Samsung has already said, that knowing about a bankruptcy isn't the same as getting the filing and reading about the litigation in all its details. It depends on what shows up in a LexisNexis search. Perhaps neither side is telling the whole story. It would not be the first time in the history of the United States legal system lawyers have done that in court filings. It's not their job to argue for the other side, only for their client.

It's for the judge to make sure someone gets to the bottom of this, in that Apple has made it an issue. But really, the flaws in the jury's verdict are so egregious, do we really need to go around and around on who knew what when? Apple is trying to escape a new trial based on a technicality. What matters is that the foreman knew, and he stayed quiet when he should have spoken, and that's what counts.

Apple pooh poohs any such concern, writing that "Apple’s view is that the 19-year old Seagate dispute is irrelevant and would not have supported challenge for cause." Note that Apple then uses the argument that a number of anonymous commenters tried out first on Groklaw:

Mr. Hogan honestly replied to the Court’s “yes-or-no” question about whether he had “ever been involved in a lawsuit” by raising his hand, disclosing a recent technology ownership dispute, and answering follow-up questions about that case. (Tr. 148:18-150:11.) He was not asked if there were other lawsuits or a bankruptcy, so he never failed to answer a question honestly. Neither the general “duty of candor” nor the two criminal cases that Samsung cites would have required Apple to disclose immaterial information about a juror.
Only a lawyer or a partisan would think that argument is valid. He was not asked a yes or no question. He was asked if he has *ever* been involved in any litigation, not just the one he cared to mention. Ever means ever and it means all of them. If the judge moved on, he had a duty to raise his hand again and say, "I didn't finish." In truth, the judge asked more than once, stressing how important it was for the prospective jurors to tell about any such, so she could make sure they understood that prior knowledge of the law might not be current. So he had more than one opportunity to raise his hand.

Then Apple makes the surprising claim -- after threatening Samsung with a motion to compel if it didn't answer the same question it now refuses to answer itself -- that it doesn't have to answer, because it's attorney work product. Again, if it felt that was so, why did it ask Samsung for it? And once it asked Samsung for it, it's laughable to me to claim that Apple can hide behind an attorney work product defense, after it is Apple who made this the pivot on which the entire question of a new trial depends. Apple says Samsung volunteered the information, but really, it was under threat of a motion to compel. On what basis would a motion to compel be valid, if this is all attorney work product?

The rest of the filings are a schedule for the post-trial depositions, stipulated to by the parties, and some corrected or unsealed exhibits.

Update: I see some are asking about Samsung's answers to the question of when Samsung learned about the voir dire problem. Here's Samsung's motion [PDF] asking for a new trial because of jury misconduct, and here's Apple's response [PDF].

If you go to this article, and go to Update 1, you'll find the text of the Declaration [PDF] of Michael T. Zeller, with an exhibit [PDF], where he tells the court how they learned of it.

And here's the detailed bankruptcy filing [PDF], which will show you the notation about the Seagate claim, and you can find many more details about the bankruptcy here, along with media reports of what the jury foreman said about it post-verdict.

And here's the emails between the lawyers, showing how not "voluntary" Samsung's answer to Apple's aggressive questioning was. And finally, here's the section of voir dire [PDF] that has been made public.


  


Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj Updated | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
As Mom used to say...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:14 AM EST

Something is rotten In the state of Denmark.

FYI - for those who don't recognize the quote, it is from Hamlet. Mom had a
Canadian classical education.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:26 AM EST
Lets assume Apple could truthfully say "We learned about Hogan's issues
from/after Samsung".

Are there any reasons for not doing so other than to get all the lawyers more
billable hours?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:27 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:28 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:29 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:30 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Case law
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:31 AM EST
Does it really matter that Samsung didn't cite case law? With
something that seems to be this serious, why should they need
to point to a previous case to say, Apple's lawyers may have
known, and we'd like to know why they didn't speak up about
it.

Further down the rabbit hole we go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Case law - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:19 PM EST
    • Case law - Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:35 PM EST
      • Case law - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:21 PM EST
  • Case law - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:36 PM EST
  • Case law - Authored by: Doghouse on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:52 PM EST
Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:43 AM EST
Apple is making a lot of mistakes lately... the case against
Samsung in the UK, the one against Motorola in Wisconsin, this
one. Their bullish aggression will be their undoing. You can't
get away with that cr... stuff for so long. Every bully meets
their match, sooner or later.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 12:31 PM EST
It does look a little odd that Apple doesn't just say, "We learned about it after the verdict too."
This is exactly what I was thinking. Sounds kinda guilty.... Especially since stating that they learned about it after the verdict would seem to fit better with how they have been behaving lately. Just like Hogan, if they had just kept quiet (i.e. not ask Samsung when they learned about Hogan), nobody would know. However, they now seem to share Hogan's penchant for having an uncontrollable mouth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 12:56 PM EST
<blockquote>
Then Apple makes the surprising claim -- after threatening Samsung with a motion
to compel if it didn't answer the same question it now refuses to answer itself
</blockquote>
We've seen this behavior in Apple before. They think they are not responsible
for something but others are.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Todays Special: Red Herring
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:16 PM EST
Apple is desparate to convince the Judge that there is nothing to worry about.

They are spinning the facts to make it appear that Samsung has no basis to complain.

Just because Samsung did learn of the bankruptcy the day of voir dire does *NOT* mean they knew of it at the time of voir dire questioning.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:18 PM EST
It seems to me that Apple's point about the bankruptcy is in fact not on point.
A bankruptcy is in itself not indicative of bias. Only the lawsuits that
precipitated the bankruptcy indicate possible bias.

Also didn't Samsung say the court records of these suits areare no longer
available? If so, how would they have been able to discover the suit without the
serendipitous marriage of one the Partners or by somehow getting access to
Seagate's records?

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:24 PM EST
Apple does not accuse Mr. Hogan of misconduct so what Apple knew is irrelevant. Not surprisingly, Samsung is unable to cite a single case that holds that the opposing party’s knowledge is relevant to whether the objecting party waived jury misconduct objections.
Samsung's reasoning for compelling Apple to disclose when they knew about Hogan's lawsuits have NOTHING to do with Apple accusing Mr. Hogan of jury misconduct. It has to do with either a) Apple knew about his past and intentionally left a fireball on the jury stand, and didn't tell anyone he was an issue; or b) Apple is claiming Samsung should have known about this even thought Apple had no required duty to know.

In short, to me at least, it seems Apple's reasoning for not having to answer is non sequitur by denying the antecedant

1) If A is true, then B is true.
2) A is false.
3) Therefore, B is false.

~ukjaybrat - IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: jacks4u on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST
My question is this: would a reasonable and responsible lawyer disclose that a
juror was potentially biased, even though properly vetted thru voir dire? That
is, if Apple knew this, while the trial was still on-going, would they have an
obligation or responsibility to disclose?

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is dragging away from the central problem with the verdict
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:57 PM EST
Whether the foreman was biased or not is fairly irrelevant to the faulty
verdict. The issue is that he acted as an expert witness, and as the judge, in
the jury room. Using his own experience and faulty understanding of patents he
persuaded the jury into a verdict not based on the merits of the evidence
presented but on his testimony that the patents should be upheld. In addition,
he interpreted the law in a manner which directly contradicted the judge's
instructions, despite swearing to weight the evidence based on the law as the
judge presented it. There is also good reason to believe that he dissuaded
other members from the jury from asking the judge for clarification on her
instructions. This behavior goes against the sworn commitments that he made
when appointed to the jury.

That he was not truthful in the other parts of his response to the judge, and
that he might have had an axe to grind with Samsung, just add fuel to the fire.
All this posturing from Apple is only to distract an overwhelmed judge who was
been known to miss things purely because of the deluge of "work
product" thrown at her.

Regards,
-Jeremy

[ Reply to This | # ]

apple dumplings in crock pot
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 07:42 PM EST

What a nifty title googled up in the search suggestion lines! The title should rightly be:

For a lawyer, to not disclose known juror misconduct, or the appearance of misconduct, is misconduct.

What a rare recipe we have here!

  • What happens at a hearing when the judge asks Jacobs, or some other Apple lawyer, when they learned of Velvin's fib? They can refuse to answer and accept the consequences, or answer and accept the consequences, if any. Unless they plan to try and stonewall the judge, they should pre-empt this scenario with prior disclosure, sealed or otherwise. Oh, but you can't seal steps in a recipe; it won't taste the same. Apple has clearly concluded that refusing to disclose this information, with all the attendant suspicion, attention and headlines, is better than the disclosure itself. It must be a doozy. What if they got an anonymous email, "Check out this case, Seagate v. Hogan, Velvin's your man!" If they found it with three amended googles, then they should just say so adding that Samsung fumbled it. Did they do due diligence or did they get some special inside information? The latter undermines their argument. They don't want to explain when and why they learned because then they would have to explain why they didn't disclose it to the Court or Samsung if they thought it was misconduct or important information. They could have approached the Court "ex parte" [without Samsung] and left it up to the Judge. What stress. In every trial the lawyers are on trial, too. They better have discussed this with their client. They are not going to be happy if this silence caused their snap billion-dollar verdict to slip away.
  • When Apple found out is also crucial. If it was during voir dire they are sunk. That is like Apple and Velvin misleading the judge. During trial, maybe. During deliberations, it is too late even for them. The alternate jurors are gone. Voir dire is taken very seriously and a lawyer trifles with it at his peril even though it is in great part guess work. Once during a multi-codefendant trial at a voir dire conducted in the jury room, one of the defense counsel announced to the judge that the next juror may be a neighbor or related to a neighbor who had taught his children. The juror was the daughter of that neighbor and did not know counsel. That juror sat on the jury. The judge thanked counsel. Later in the same voir dire a juror entered and answered several questions. Finally the juror indicated that she and her family were friends with one of the defense counsel and his family. The judge was very angry with counsel for not advising the court ahead of time. It appears extremely bad and suggests that counsel was trying to get a friend on the jury. So for Apple to let a former litigant against their opponent sit incognito is very close to the edge. Their fondest wish came true --he sat and produced a snap billion dollar verdict. And Velvin takes full credit with gushing public appearances. It is tainted.
  • Apple's position has to be that there was no misconduct. The lawyers have taken an advocate's perspective: Samsung missed, too bad for them. They have also taken a self-interested position: the Court missed, that's not our fault. They have also taken a wilfully "unknowing" position: "What misconduct? It was just a fluke!" With no misconduct there is no reason to disturb the verdict. A billion dollars does not come easy and they will not lightly give it away.
  • So what about Velvin's fib. He was asked if he had ever been in litigation. He did not say "yes" and await follow-up questioning. He immediately volunteered one incident of litigation thus implying only one incident of litigation. If there were more, he had the obligation to inform the court. He did not. He misled them. One would like to ask Velvin why didn't he inform the Court of the other litigation involving Seagate/Samsung? Wasn't that more significant? Velvin has already gone on record as saying that he thought he only had to answer for ten years. However the judge did not limit it to ten years so there he is in another fib. He also has gone on record with an epiphany during deliberations that he had to defend the patents. He also admits improperly ruling out all prior art due to its incompatibility with Apple software, another plain error. He also took a punitive role on damages pronouncing the need to teach Samsung a lesson. Despite the fact that juror deliberations are sacrosanct and rarely second-guessed, the judge is going to have to guess with Velvin and all his issues --like improper damages, inconsistencies, haste and failure to deliberate. It's like everyone in jail says they are innocent, rarely enough it is true. Any of these issues in a vacuum may would not be enough to disturb a verdict, but all of them cause some cross-fertilization and severe doubt. The standard for the Judge will be whether she abuses her discretion --she has to determine the presumptive facts going forward and rule thereon. This decision will not be disturbed unless an appeals court finds that she abused her discretion. Will she ride with valor and back Velvin, Apple and the verdict, or will she discreetly say this is either wrong, biased and unfair? Let's do it over right.
  • So the question becomes: Does the Judge want to conclude the trial was "good enough" despite Velvin's performance and accept the verdict with modifications? That should be her bias since the trial was her product. But that would be assailable by some in any panel of judges. The easy way out is to find a mistrial and do it over better with no chance of as much controversy. She would not abuse her discretion by concluding that Velvin misled her. That would spare the lawyers, too.
Such delicious marvels --like watching Planet of the Apes, Sandy flood newsreels or Julia Child from the grave! Too much! What spicy apple twists will tomorrow bring?

~webster~

Made chicken jambalaya for tomorrow!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 04:31 AM EST
Apple seem headed for that logical conundrum. As I understand it, Mr Hogan
was asked about his involvement in past court cases and did not disclose the
one involving Seagate. Whether that meant he was biased is really irrelevant. He

was asked a question and provided an answer that, to use a euphemism, was at
variance with historical fact.

Did Apple know that the answer was wrong? If not, how can it expect Samsung
to know. If they did know, then did they think it was okay for Mr Hogan to
deceive Samsung and the judge? If it is not okay not to be truthful, why did
they
not say something? I can see no answer Apple can give that does not make
them look inconsistent, dishonest, incompetent, or a mixture. No wonder they
don't want to answer at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are the chances of Apple being caught in a lie?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 08:40 AM EST
I'm not saying that they would do so, but what if they had
known about this from the start, and lied now to say that
they had only found out from Samsung.

What chances would there be to catch such deception?

Presumably if caught, the penalty would be severe for the
lawyers' career, and for Apple's case, but it seems like it
would never be found out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motion to compel decision
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 09:43 AM EST
Is there a set date by which the motion to compel will be decided?

[ Reply to This | # ]

questioning in good faith
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 10:14 AM EST
The 'Samsung should have known' makes no sense to me, because assuming
disclosures in bad faith becomes prohibitively cumbersome to investigate. Apple
seemed to me to be claiming that Samsung should have been digging into every
statement. If that is true, then why bother with punishing anyone for perjury?
I can see going over testimony carefully, but jurors have a duty to be open and
honest in the screening process and, if they are not, then they are (or should
be) liable, not the court officials that expected prospective jurors to actually
follow instructions ... which is where the Big V had issues.

An earler poster could not have been more accurate; to know of misconduct
without disclosing that knowledge is misconduct. Attorneys that knew that
Velvin was not being openly honest were themselves failing to be open or
honest.

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question About Emails
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST
I read those emails between the lawyers and do not understand why they are
important and what they prove. Anybody could explain please?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 04:44 PM EST
He was not asked a yes or no question. He was asked if he has *ever* been involved in any litigation, not just the one he cared to mention. Ever means ever and it means all of them.
Of course that is a yes or no question! It is true that "ever means ever", but that just means that there is no time limit to the yes or no question.

The question is just asking if something ever happened. The answer is "yes" if it ever happened and "no" if it never happened.

If someone asked you if you ever wrote a article for Groklaw, the answer would be "yes." If someone asked me, the answer would be "no." If someone asked me if I ever wrote a comment, the answer would be "yes."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two thoughts occured to me...
Authored by: GriffMG on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 03:24 PM EST
One, I bet there is a smoking gun that indicates Apple was informed of the
jurors little issue either during voir dire or just after - and they know that
if they deny it, that smoking gun will be in the public domain faster than
Windows 8 boots...

two, is it just possible that they are digging frantically for evidence to
suggest that any smoking gun actually came from Samsung indirectly?

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )