|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
