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
Of course, Samsung SEEMES to think it might of happened. | 249 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Of course, Samsung SEEMES to think it might of happened.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT
Your memory is OK. It's mentioned in paragraph 5 if the declaration PJ included
in the update.

I think Samsung probably would be better off leaving the question unanswered. If
Samsung says the fraud claim happened, it had better have happened or Samsung
could get in trouble. If Samsung points to the Reuters article and acts like it
might have happened, it raises the question of why did Hogan say that to Reuters
and why didn't he mention it to the court, without Samsung risking getting in
trouble. They don't need to believe what Hogan told Reuters to do that. If,
instead, they say that they can't find any evidence of the claim, then they have
hearsay evidence that he lied to Reuters (not a huge concern for the court), but
take off the table the question of whether or not he should have mentioned the
possible fraud claim during jury selection (probably a much bigger concern for
the court). I think that would be the best option for them.

[ 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 )