|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:06 AM EDT |
Yeah, the guy's backpedaling as fast as possible, but continues to drop himself
further and further in it.
At this point, he should be hiring a lawyer of his own, who's first advice will
be 'STOP TALKING'[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
If we get an evidentiary hearing, Mr. Hogan will get a chance to tell Judge Koh
about Samsung's conspiracy to let him on the jury! Or something... I doubt he
will be suddenly taken with a case of reticence. I'm sure he'll be confident of
his ability to 'splain it all to them.
I'm going to try to find some excuse to go to company HQ in SanFran about that
time, and then go beg on bended knee to get sent there...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
As I pointed out earlier, the suit involved was nearly 20 years ago. Who would
remember a minor (to the lawyer or to Seagate, at least) case that occurred
nearly 20 years ago? And, for that matter, did that lawyer and the one married
to him/her and involved in this case even know each other at that time?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
About all sorts of things...
Validity of prior art, interchangability of code, the importance of IP
protection in the lawless world of asian imports, Samsung's motivations in
questioning his impartial punishment, etc...
Most people, when confronted with a messy result of digging a verbal hole for
themself, would happily shut up. Mr. Hogan asks for a bigger shovel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
