|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
While the JMOL from Samsung is dated 21 Sept, I could believe it took MoFo two
days to review it. The Reuters article was on the 25th after Apple's
interrogatory to Samsung (footnote 1, 2003 gives the 24th). We were reading or
pursuing the Santa Cruz Municipal Court connection on the 24th.
I think I found the Open Access connection maybe six hours before it was
commented on here. It showed up at the top of Google Search results then,
usually an indication of a prior search by other parties. I subsequently found
procedures and contact information for obtaining copies of the records from the
Court Clerk, whereupon I hit a resource wall, being 7800 miles away. I also had
pressing business.
I'd certainly stipulate it's likely the case authorities were pointed out some
12 or so hours earlier pointing to those affecting the redacted portion sometime
on the 23rd here on Groklaw. We lacked the organized follow through to scoop
anyone.
Speculating in comments isn't investigative reporting, it may make useful leads,
though. I don't see Groklaw becoming a news reporting concern. If we're
collectively happy being dots someone else connects let's try and be as accurate
as possible.
I don't see anything Samsung need do that required contacting the juror's before
filing their JMOL. The dots were out there for them too, the more so having
access to the court record without redaction. As someone pointed out finding
the 1993 case summary required searching for Seagate, which makes is it likely
Samsung was casting a wide net or otherwise knew of the case. You could imagine
someone with firsthand knowledge may have contacted them.
It would of course be interesting to hear how the case came to light.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
