|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
Sorry, I'm responding to myself but I just read the article a little more
carefully. Can anyone else bring up Hogan's LinkedIn profile to see if this is
true? I can't find it.
... Interestingly, he lists InTeleMax
as a previous employer — as a public company with the stock listing INTC. That’s
Intel. But if you search InTeleMax in corporate records it lists its address as
the same as Hogan’s San Jose, Calif. home.
And the patent that
he held is lapsed ... but he would have us believe he is a patent holder, or is
that the one he bought? Does this guy ever play it straight up?
I hope
Samsung's lawyers are doing more homework and Judge Koh takes this seriously,
assuming this isn't just me suspeculating the freaky creepy stuff. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:05 AM EDT |
Replying to myself again.
From multicastlabs.com
Vel Hogan
Vice President of Engineering
Vel received his Engineering
education from the San Jose State University in 1977. Since then he has refined
his expertise at Memorex, Storage Tech, DEC, Micropolis, and Quantum. He has
over 30 years of experience in recording technology.
Vel became interested in
refining and defining video compression while developing new performance
characteristics for Digital Video Recording on a hard drive. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cpeterson on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:14 AM EDT |
Gina Smith's got some very interesting stuff there. Mr. Hogan's LinkedIn
profile page - indicates he was formerly CEO (over 6 years) at INTC. But wait -
before you go thinking that's Intel (which it is), he's actually using that
abbreviation to refer to InTeleMax - a company located at... Mr. Hogan's house.
LinkedIn's systems, though, know about stock abbreviations and pull up the
"Public company, 10,001+ employees, Semiconductors industry" data for
Intel.
If his living room was that big, I'll bet one of the
reporters interviewing him would have noticed.
Here's a link to another article by the same writer. In it,
Ms. Smith shows a diagram created for her by Chicago IP attorney John Stec,
showing relationships between Hogan's patents, Apple's patents, and Samsung's
patents. It's a bit unclear - to me, anyway - what those "relationship" lines
mean, and which way they are pointing. But if, as I suspect, the stuff toward
the top and bottom cites the stuff nearer the middle, then this trial was sunk
from the get-go. There's no possible outcome where you can't go right back to
that chart and have a reasonable case for juror bias. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
At the risk of being overly aggressive to drive home a point, corporationwiki would
suggest that Hogan's wife is Carol Hogan. The County of Santa Clara court has a
recent docket for Discover Bank Vs C.
Hogan which is a Carol Hogan. If this is Hogan's wife, with all due respect
to his family, he should have mentioned this case in the voir dire as
well.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 09:28 AM EDT |
I don't care if the guy was right or wrong.
I am very much against digging up stuff on him.
Anyone who appreciates jury nullification or other
jury empowerment theories should be staying far
away from this.
If they knock down the verdict it should be based
on the jury making an unreasonable conclusion regarding
the facts.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|