|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
I'd say at the same time as the first question. I.e. when
the spouse mentioned the case Mr Hogan was involved in, he
would have included the opposing party in the conversation -
since said spouse would've been Seagate's lawyer on that
case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
As far as the timeline of Samsung's knowledge goes...
It seems improbable to me that the names of the jurors would have come up in
casual conversation before the trial's verdict, even among spouses of the
lawyers. Do I tell my spouse the names of the cashiers in the stores I go to?
Unless there is a story attached ("the cashier was wearing a giant
hat"), there is no point, it is not interesting.
Afterwards, though, Hogan gave several interviews, and basically drew a lot of
attention to himself. Those interviews, after losing a billion dollar verdict,
are a plausible topic for dinner conversation between the spouses of the
lawyers.
I agree with the other comments, if he really wanted this verdict to stand, he
should have kept his mouth shut, and just said the standard "it was a
difficult trial, everybody worked hard, we tried to be fair, etc." That
kind of comment isn't worthy of a news article, and it is likely he wouldn't
have had any press hits.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
It seems to me that discussion of the case outside the firm proper during
the trial might simply be verboten, as a matter of good security practice.
There are plenty of sealed documents in this case, too, and not discussing
the case helps keep the information secret.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|