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
Don't kid yourself ... | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: PolR on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT
This case doesn't show up in Google Scholar, even when I use the exact cite
found in the brief or use the case number. This is suggestive that this case
isn't a precedent setting one. Alt least it is sufficiently insignificant that
it didn't made it to Google Scholar database.

Why a case like this would show up in the table of authorities if it is not a
case where the jury foreman is one of the parties? We don't know the answer. The
only way to find out is to dig out the actual case. But with the information we
have it looks suspicious.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Don't kid yourself ...
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
Parent posits ...
"Seagate Tech. sounds like a hard drive manufacturer.
That case might have nothing to do with this Mr. Hogan"

Seagate IS a hard drive manufacturer.

From
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-leaned-on-e
ngineer-patent-holder.html
--------
Hogan said he worked in the computer hard-drive industry for 35 years at
companies including Memorex Corp., Colorado- based Storage Technology Corp. and
Massachusetts-based Digital Equipment Corp.
--------

So don't kid yourself ... it very likely IS the same Hogan.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
http://63.197.255.150/openaccesspublic/CIVIL/CivilDetails.asp
?courtcode=A&casenumber=MS930919&casetype=CIS&dsn=

Unless there is another Veltman Hogan it's him.

mouse The Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )