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
Seagate vs Hogan | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Seagate vs Hogan
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT
Here is the cite of the case.

Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan,
Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993)

mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You are suggesting Hogan had a vendeta...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT
against Samsung? That would be too bizarre and could land the poor guy in jail.
No joke. I think he is smarter than that. I would agree than revenge that has
simmered for 20 years is irresistible for some people. It would have to be
proved for me. I think he is just self important. Nothing morte.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

More likely he didn't disclose it in voir dire.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT
The case that he discusses appears that it would be different than this one, and
that's the only one he covers. Add onto that, several of Samsung's authorities
involve a juror who failed to disclose relevant facts during voir dire.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Seagate vs Hogan
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT
IANAL, but I think much of the discussion is missing the point about Seagate vs Hogan. To impeach the jury verdict, Samsung's counsel have to achieve two things:
  1. Get Mr Hogan on the stand.
  2. Get him to confirm that he used his outside knowledge to influence the verdict of other members of the jury (acting as an unofficial witness). Given his public statements, that may be quite difficult for him to avoid, assuming that Samsung's counsel can put the question to him.
The cases about misstatements in voir dire are pretty clear: Judge Koh will have to permit an examination of whether any misstatements could have influenced the result of the trial. To do that, she will have to put Mr Hogan on the stand. That satisfies the first step. I think that's the only function of Seagate vs Hogan for Samsung counsel.

Once he's on the stand, they will want to examine whether (as a result of Seagate vs Hogan, or for some other reason) Mr Hogan used outside knowledge to influence other members of the jury. By then, it won't matter whether the outside knowledge came from Seagate vs Hogan, from his previous patent experience, or anywhere else. I doubt if they will even look at Seagate vs Hogan.

I think the reason they're using Seagate vs Hogan for step 1 is that it's cut and dried, and one of the precedents is from a civil trial. For the other potential reasons for examining Mr Hogan, the precedents are pretty murky (and also differentiated by being mostly on criminal matters).

[ 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 )