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
No. | 249 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Samsung *SHOULD* have known of the bankruptcy before the verdict?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
So does this mean "shoulda coulda woulda" is an official statute under
the law? Maybe as kids we had it right?

IANAL but this seems unreasonable.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
First, I don't see how you could have read what PJ said that way. She said, "...and Samsung knew that there was a bankruptcy..." while describing Apple's argument. There is no "should have" anywhere in there.

Apple's filing says:
Mr. Hogan disclosed during voir dire that he had “worked for Seagate” (Tr. 191:20- 192:2), and Samsung also knew that day that Mr. Hogan failed to disclose that he “declared bankruptcy in 1993.” (Dkt. No. 2022 ¶ 9.)
Apple is clearly saying that they knew already during jury selection. A problem is that I can't verify their citation.

Both sides have been putting words into the mouths of their opponents. I suspect that this is a case of that. I think that since Samsung didn't say when they knew, Apple just said it for them. To me, that amounts to blatant dishonesty, but both sides have been doing it, and neither side has been raising much of a fuss about it, so maybe it's OK for lawyers to do it.

The citation refers to Dkt. No. 2022 ¶ 9. But #2022 was filed in error and was replaced by #2025, as far as I can tell. But the declaration in there (Exhibit B) only goes to paragraph 5 (not 9) and sidesteps the question of when Samsung knew about the bankruptcy. There are email arguments about when Samsung would provide the additional information, but I can't find any indication in there that they did.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The perfect response for Samsung.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT
Your Honor,

Apple said we should have known so we can only assume that
they did in fact know themselves.

Can your honor ask Apple to explain to the court why they
allowed a juror to commit perjury and omit critical details
when addressing this court and not bring it to the notice
of the judge?

Rgds

Franki

[ 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 )