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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Is simply knowing we were right in retrospect a hollow victory? | 312 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
We knew it was there because we knew out would be.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 09:09 PM EDT
Very much so, again, Apple's twisting reality here on what's going on. Wonder
if they've already spoken to the foreman and told him to shut up, Shut Up, SHUT
UP!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Is simply knowing we were right in retrospect a hollow victory?
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT

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 | # ]

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 )