|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
I didn't get far enough in the reading before I had the same thought
:)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- My Goodness! - Authored by: joef on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Actually, you are the one that is wrong. Again. - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- I'd appreciate if you didn't read more in my statement then I intended - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Shills, please raise yer game. :) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- 460 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- 460 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- This Jury Foreman's Massive Brain iNfarction... isn't PJ's fault! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
How does the law work here? Can Samsung use post trial Juror
testimony to prove the Jury was unreasonable or didn't
understand the Judge's instructions and therefore get a
mistrial?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
but could that be on the Samsung side and not part of the Apple claim? I wonder
if that argument was placed into evidence or is Hogan just trying to be helpful?
He does seem to be quite convincing and reasonable in his justification of
events tho. This gets more strange every time he opens his mouth.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
Of course it is. As a casual reader, it jumps out that the jury failed to
follow instructions - the understanding they did have was wrong - they seemed
confused even on which patents were infringed which just adds to the
inconsistencies.
Seems like mistrial material.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
I think the whole thing is fishy. Interesting how he worked out the solution at
home. Was there a phone call made, outside help that persuaded him.
How could anyone apply his logic towards the prior art but not then use the same
logic to dispel the claims against Samsung unless they were either not the
brightest or they had an ulterior motive.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 06:57 AM EDT |
| He is paid to be a troll. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
