|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
Don't assume that some dots were not noted here.
It may be those dots helped lead those with more time
and resources to connect more dots.
It appears to me that MoFo is very concerned about
something that they are speculating may have happened
and they are hoping that Samsung will provide some clues.
Hence the footnote 1 in the opposition document (2003).
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
No, we might not always be first, but Hogan's egregiousness is obvious.
But it's also not at all clear that we aren't very much a part of the process.
After all, some of the articles even cite Groklaw, and I suspect the lawyers
are reading us. PJ tends to write useful facts, and the site does some
crowdsourced research of interest to the parties, like finding prior art.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
heh heh
Sometimes journalists claim to be first, but they
really read it here first. It happens. I don't
care about it, because I only care about information
getting out. But trust me, it happens.
The Seagate case was in the list of cases, showing
Hogan's name. So was his bankruptcy case. It took
zero sleuthing on Reuters part. That was available
when I wrote about the JMOL motion on the 22nd. I
saw it instantly. Some commenters here did too.
Personally, I deliberately waited to do the cases as
text, because I thought it was a mistake that it wasn't
redacted, and I very much did not want to be the one
to shine a flashlight on Mr. Hogan. I didn't want him
to be harrassed, and I thought it best to wait and see
if it got redacted.
When it didn't, I put that section in, and then I
wrote about it. If you read the first article on the
22nd, you'll see that when writing about it, I
mentioned the cases indicated jury misconduct
was the issue in the redacted section and then wrote
"Nuff said". So I knew, but I also know the law,
and I know that you have to respect a jury, unless there
is real misconduct, and that's for the judge to decide
or the appeals court. I saw there was info from Samsung
that we didn't have, so I was in no position to
say whether what they dug up was valid or not. With
that element in the picture, I chose to be kind.
Scoops are fine as long as they don't hurt people. I'm
not at all interested in that kind of scoop. Trust me when
I tell you that I could have and chose not to.
It's part of what makes Groklaw different. But I put
out enough that Reuters could have realized what I
was saying "Nuff said" about. I can't prove that they
did, but either way, we certainly wrote about it first
and pointed to the cases.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
Groklaw's overriding concern is to be accurate. A few times I've noted PJ
saying she took along time to post to get the details right. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
