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
I think what you are talking about happened outside the court | 249 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Hogan is NOT a lawyer
Authored by: Wol on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 03:29 AM EDT
Was he told that? Is he supposed to know that?

I know I keep banging that drum, but you know American law a lot better than I
do. As a non-American, thanks to you, I probably know American law a lot better
than the average American. I'm wary of Hogan - with his experience he *should*
know more, but that's no guarantee he *does*.

I know the saying says "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", but I
still feel it is unreasonable to expect a non-lawyer to know what the law says -
heck it's unreasonable to expect a lawyer to know it all - what chance does a
layperson have!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think what you are talking about happened outside the court
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT
"Look at the mess this juror has caused, and don't influence others to
think it's all right to cause such a mess. "

But the mess he caused and what was said during the voir dire are two different
points. You do not have to have big master plan in order to take conclusions
after seeing only one side arguments. You do not need anti-samsung plan from the
beginning in order to think you know it all without seeing evidence.

All you need is to be arrogant and stupid enough, which Hogan seems to be. Look
at his interviews, he through how great and smart he was and how good he did, he
had no idea that his ideas about prior art are stupid.

The sad thing is that the mess he caused does not seem to be a strong reason for
appeal. It is easier to appeal on procedural misunderstanding than to appeal
"ignored the law while making the judgement".

The mess he caused is the same whether he lied on purpose or was just confused.
Samsung needs technical reason for appeal, because the system does not care
whether the result is fair or not and that is what this argument is about.

[ 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 )