decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Juror misconduct is not the fault of the Judge. | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Juror misconduct is not the fault of the Judge.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT
So if he swore under oath, does that mean purjury? Is this guy in serious
trouble, or does purjury only apply to people lying on the witness stand?

Or contempt of court, especially as he's continuing to spin his answers and keep
lying?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Definitely Judge errors involved
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT
In retrospect, fault or not, the Court errored by not asking how many since 'a' is singular. So in the sense that the question was asked he correctly responded since it was not exclusive. But he also it lied because there was not single case. It followed with another Court error, as other posters said, by not checking if there were any others even if there was an expectation of how many. An another error is that the Court never asked what company and also if the patent was done as part of a company (if, so which company). But these should not have impacted the trial if the jury had done what it was told to do.

Another possible mistake relates to the "Seagate and Samsung strategic alignment" from April 2011 (link has the press release as well). This creates a link between Samsung and Hogan that he probably should have informed the Court of. I was under the impression that jurors are meant to tell the Court of any potential conflicts of interest so the Court can decide what is actually a conflict.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )