|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
The main reason we guessed that the motion would
contain jury misconduct issues was because the
misconduct was obvious, and we knew Samsung would
be raising it. When we saw a redacted section, it was
clear what it was. We now have confirmation, from
apple.
And, if I am right, samsung redacted the references
from the redacted section too. We noted that juror
misconduct was an additional feature of cases cited
elsewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a submission from
samsung starting that Apple shouldn't be discussing
juror misconduct in public.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
Enough here for a libel finding, were it not a court filing
Very doubtful Samsung contacted jurors...
When did they know? Why, all these PUBLIC docs have PUBLICATION
dates!
As for Hogan and Seagate, well, I bet.they didn't think to look until AFTER
the trial, using clues Hogan gave IN PUBLIC. NO reason to expect such a
mendacious juror BEFORE the verdict...
And with all the talking Hogan's been doing, who'd athunk a redacted
section WASN'T about him?? Paid Shills, maybe? The seal is for the other
jurors who might also be in those public documents, and an
acknowledgement of Judge Koh's authority. PJ seriously outguessed me
on that point, until I started reading cites (grin!)
Apple is seriously wasting its breath and making the judge unhappy by
wasting her time with the opposition to the motion to seal. Popcorn?
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
