There's also the Holmesian deductive analysis showing the cited Authorities
were accounted for save those pointing to jury misconduct and therefore
belonging to the redacted section. There's also the investigative news report
from Reuters Samsung goes after jury
foreman in bid to reverse Apple verdict (a recent Groklaw News Pick) by
Alison Frankel and Dan Levine, wherein they either having obtained records from
the 1993 case involving the jury member or otherwise had cause to question him,
asked why he hadn't disclose that particular involvement as a defendant in
litigation. An action by his ex-employer to apparently recover relocation
related expenses following a lay off.
Any knowledge we as Groklaw
commentators have is derived from an incomplete public record, misconduct
suspected but by no means obvious from the public record. The proof of which
would be an order based on a motion to overturn a verdict based on jury
misconduct, likely providing for a new trial.
And it was nice of Apple to
let 'the cat out of the bottle' following Samsung's attempt to keep this motion
basis out of the public record. Groklaw commentator Webster had earlier
hypothesized the purpose of the redaction was to keep the particular juror's
name out of the public eye, but as we see from the above cited story he was more
than willing to volunteer further contribution to his fifteen minutes of
fame.
@AlisonFrankel tweets
that they were the first to pick up on the 1993 litigation, and I can believe
it. I found evidence of prior Google Search and read the case summary before
someone published the link in a comment here on Groklaw to the case on the Santa
Cruz Municipal District Court's Open Access site (mandated by California law).
Reuter's reporters were better organized than Groklaw readers.
I'd
personally have been looking at several rounds of snail mail transactions with
the Court Clerk, no one else was (apparently) organized to make the effort, I'm
also without ready U.S. funds, and had no family members in the U.S. immediately
available to help. I'd imagine PJ is hampered by the need to insure privacy as
demonstrated by actions taken by SCO or it's adherents in the the not to distant
past. You could note there is no public trail by the Reuters reporters showing
how they got the story first. Accredited reporters would have no qualms about
contacting news figures directly as occurred with the juror in this
case.
The moral of the story being that Groklaw is a resource and isn't
placed to scoop anyone. Also note from the tweet exchange linked above Florian
Mueller stuck his oar in, too. Look on Sep 26, and expand the conversation
showing @FOSSPATENTS. If we want to be able to bring news first, we'd need to
be better organized and dedicated.
On the other hand
Groklaw's remit is a bit
narrow to support the organized effort to get the news first. We can see
stories forming but can't get there first. We're seeing the difference between
news gathering organizations and blogs.
Still if you see something big
potentially coming from something I strongly suggest emailing PJ, in particular
if you're positioned to carry through with a little investigative journalism
which she may be constrained from undertaking. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|