|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
Namely, "ever".
Does not comport with VH's new 10-year limit; it's not impossible that such a
thing was on some written material given to potential jurors, but it's doubtful.
Apple would have cited it if it existed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:52 AM EDT |
And hurts his image more and more in the process.
The time constraint was there, pretty clear, as was already pointed out: EVER.
If he can't understand such a simple question, what could we expect regarding
such a complicated trial?
The article also mentions this:
"Hogan said yesterday’s filing has him wondering whether Samsung “let me in
the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their
favor.”"
So, while mr. Hogan was busy lying in voir dire Samsung lawyers had time to chat
with all lawyer's relatives about all propective jurors to come up with that
intel, plot that strategy, and so they let he in just to have the excuse. Not
plausible, sorry. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
This was discussed earlier in Apple v.
Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket
1979-1993):
THE COURT: okay. Welcome back. Please take a
seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. let's continue with the
questions. the next question is, have you or a family member or someone very
close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a
defendant, or as a witness?
Let's see. On the first row, who would raise
their hand to that question? All right. let's go to Mr.
Hogan.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the
programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately, across
the next few months, it was dismissed and in such a fashion that neither one of
us could sue the other one for that matter.
THE COURT: What was his --
what was the employee's claim?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was a dispute over
the software that we had developed, whether it belonged to the company or to
him, and I had documents that showed it belonged to the company. Ultimately, as
I said, it would -- we settled out of court and it was dismissed.
THE
COURT: All right. Anything about that experience that would affect your ability
to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I
don't believe so.
THE COURT: Okay. Was there any dispute -- was there any
dispute as to who had created and invented the technology, or was it largely who
had ownership of it?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was strictly who had ownership
of it, and ultimately it was established that the company did have ownership of
it, although -- and I still do -- although the company is not in business any
longer.
THE COURT: I see. But was there a sort of dispute as to who had
created or invented the technology as part of that ownership
question?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, there was.
THE COURT:
Um-hum.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: But like I said, we settled that -- because of
documentation I had, we were able to settle it out of court and then we went
back to court one last time for the dismissal paperwork.
THE COURT: Okay.
All right. Thank you.... So I want to make sure that both Mr. Hogan, and Ms.
Rougieri, that you would apply the law as I instruct you and not based on your
understanding of the law based on your own cases. Is that correct, Mr.
Hogan?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.....
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
Would that in any way -- you'll be instructed on what the law is and would you
be able to follow the instructions I give you on the law, even if it may not
completely correspond to what you may know about the patent system or the
intellectual property laws?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, I follow your
instructions.
So Mr. Hogan informed the court about one
lawsuit, but not the other two. And there was no ten year limitation in the
court's question. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: indyandy on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:38 AM EDT |
| [I see eric76 has already posted a similar response to this, but as (1) it was
so hard to do - several lines appeared out of order after copy/paste, (2) there
is a small error in his transcript and (3) I don't want to feel I've wasted 2
hours of my life, I will post my response as well. No doubt there will be
other errors in my transcript
:-)]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The transcript below is from
the Pierce Declaration ( http://www.groklaw.
net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf ) which was linked to in PJ's article
"Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj" ( http://www.gro
klaw.net/article.php%3fstory=20120923233451725 )
(Line numbers removed, ALL
CAPS removed to avoid waking the neighbours, Line breaks inserted semi-randomly,
my emphasis on "ever")
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1991-1
Filed09/21/12 Page7 of 29
[Lines 1 - 10 omitted]
(Whereupon, the
following proceedings
were held in of the presence of the prospective
jurors.)
THE COURT:
Take a seat.
Okay. Welcome back.
Please
we had a
few more departures in your
absence.
Let's continue with the
questions.
The next question is, have you or a
family member or someone very
close to you ever
been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff,
a
defendant, or as a witness?
Let's see.
On the first row, who would
raise
their hand to that question?
All right.
Let's go to Mr.
Hogan.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
In 2008, after
my
-----------------------------------------------
(Page 8)
company
went belly up, the programmer that worked
for me filed a lawsuit against me and
ultimately,
across the next few months, it was dismissed and in
such a fashion
that neither one of us could sue the
other one for that matter.
THE
COURT:
What was his -- what was the
employee's claim?
PROSPECTIVE
JUROR:
It was a dispute over
the software that we had developed, whether
it
belonged to the company or to him, and I had
documents that showed it
belonged to the company.
Ultimately, as I said, it would -- we
settled out of
court and it was dismissed.
THE COURT:
All right.
Anything about
that experience that would affect your ability to
be fair and impartial to both
sides in this case?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I don't believe so.
THE
COURT:
Okay. Was there any
dispute -- was there any dispute as to who
had
created and invented the technology, or was it
largely who had ownership
of it?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
It was strictly who
had ownership of it,
and ultimately it was
established that the company did have ownership of
it,
although -- and I still do -- although
the
-----------------------------------------------
(Page
9)
company is not in business any longer.
THE COURT:
I see. But
was there a sort
of dispute as to who had created or invented the
technology
as part of that ownership question?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Yes, there
was.
THE COURT:
Um-hum.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
But like I said,
we
settled that -- because of documentation I had, we
were able to settle it
out of court and then we
went back to court one last time for the dismissal
paperwork.
THE COURT:
OK. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Rougieri, I
think you raised your card?
[Lines 16-25 omitted]
For
completeness, here are further extracts that mention Mr. Hogan by
name:
case5:11-cv-01846-lhk document1991-1 filed09/21/12 page11 of
29
[Lines 1 - 19 omitted]
(THE COURT:)
And we'll talk about this a
little bit
later on, but in different types of cases, there
may be different
standards of proof, and also the
law may have changed since whenever you were
a
litigant.
So I want to make sure that
both
-----------------------------------------------
(page 12)
Mr.
Hogan, and Ms. Rougieri, that you would apply
the law as I instruct you and not
based on your
understanding of the law based on your own cases.
Is that
correct, Mr. Hogan?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Yes
THE COURT:
and Ms.
Rougieri?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Yes
[Lines 8 - 25
omitted]
case5:11-cv-01846-lhk document1991-1
filed09/21/12 page15 of 29
[Lines 1,2 omitted]
(THE COURT:)
Okay.
Now,
raise your hand, please, if
you have ever applied for a patent, a copyright, a
trademark or trade dress registration.
All right.
So we have three hands
raised.
If you would -- oh, four.
All right.
[Lines 8 - 25 omitted]
[pages
16 - 19 omitted]
(page 20)
[Lines 1 - 18 omitted]
(THE COURT:)
Let's
go to Mr. Hogan.
You had some?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Excuse me.
In 2002,
I
filed for a patent in video compression software,
and in 2008, the patent was
issued to me.
and in 2008 I filed a follow-on patent in
more detail and that
is currently pending.
THE COURT:
I see.
Okay.
All
right.
case5:11-cv-01846-lhk document1991-1
filed09/21/12 page22 of 29
[Lines 1 - 12 omitted]
(THE COURT:)
Now,
same for Mr. Tepman, as well as to
Mr. Hogan.
You all have a lot of experience,
but
will you be able to decide this case based solely
on the evidence that's
admitted during the trial?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Yes
THE
COURT:
Mr. Hogan says yes.
[Lines 19 - 25
omitted]
case5:11-cv-01846-lhk document1991-1
filed09/21/12 page23 of 29
[line 1 omitted]
(THE COURT:)
Now, the next
question, have you ever
been accused of taking an idea from someone else?
Would you please raise your hand?
All right. Let's go to Mr. Hogan.
Would
you please pass the microphone,
Mr. Tepman? Thank you.
PROSPECTIVE
JUROR:
As I had stated
earlier, that was -- in 2008, that was the
accusation
against me before the patent was issued.
But as I said, that case ultimately
was
dropped in my favor.
THE COURT:
Now, when the programmer sued
you,
was that programmer also a co-inventor on the
patent?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
No.
THE COURT: No.
I see.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
The patent was
issued
totally -- exclusively in my name.
THE COURT:
I see.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
And I had filed for
that patent prior to his joining
the effort to work
for it.
That was part of my documentation showing
that it
was mine.
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
case5:11-cv-01846-lhk document1991-1 filed09/21/12 page24 of
29
[Lines 1 - 6 omitted]
(THE COURT:)
Let's just -- I want to go down
the line
and just ask you if you use any of the following
and how often you
use them, okay?
So -- I'll just give you a list:
that
you either do internet
searching; you maintain your
own blog or you like to blog a lot; you maintain
a
twitter account, a facebook account.
Let me go straight down the line,
please.
[Lines 15 - 25 omitted]
(page 25)
[Lines 1 - 8
omitted]
(THE COURT:)
Mr. Hogan?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
So I use the
internet a lot.
I, of course, google a lot.
I don't have a facebook account of
my own
or a twitter account, just strictly e-mail.
THE COURT:
Do you
blog?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank
you.
[Lines 17 - 25 omitted]
I also searched for "years" as
in Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there was any
misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential jurors required
disclosure of any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years --
and that the 1993 bankruptcy and related litigation involving Seagate fell well
outside that time range.
... but I didn't find anything in this
document to support that statement. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
I sadly don't have the time to read the
court filings in
their entirety so maybe I missed something.
Since the
transcripts are (presumably) not yet available, we
can't yet read any court
filings that answer that question, so
we won't know the exact language used
during voire
dire until later.
---
"When I say something, I
put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
It's a good avoidance technique. Answer a portion of the original question, and
elaborate on it until the questioner moves on to another question. If they
ask" Is there more?" you continue with more details without
mentioning the subject you are wanting to avoid.
In order to get the whole truth the judge would have needed to ask if there was
any other trials besides the one already mentioned. Otherwise he was answering
the question asked.
I've been told that during interviews to stay on topic and just answer the
question asked, do not volunteer additional information.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
I wonder if there might have been a similar question on a pre-trial jury form
that specified a 10-year time limit, and Hogan thought this was just a repeat of
that question? I have some vague memories of filling in a form with a question
like that on it when I was called up for jury service years ago, although I'm
not sure whether that was in the UK or the US. Not that I'm trying to excuse
his conduct, but something like that might have been a reason for Hogan's
confusion and answers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bprice on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
is Mr. Hogan lying or maybe just senile?
It occurs to
me that there may be another source of Hogan's confusion about a ten-year
limitation.
IIRC, either the BK law or the Fair Credit Reporting Act places a
ten-year limit on a bankruptcy's effect on one's credit rating. That is, a
personal BK discharge is not to be mentioned in a credit report later than ten
years after discharge.
Hogan's Seagate adventure, according to reports, ended
with Hogan's personal BK. In light of Hogan's apparent tendency to get legal
things badly wrong, might it be that he also decided that this limitation meant
that he didn't have to mention the BK in voir dire? If so, it's an easy
jump (if you tend to get legal things wrong) to not having to mention the cause
of the BK, either. ---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially
mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
