|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
Given that California is in the ninth circuit, the fact that
Apple is citing an eighth-circuit case is good news for
Samsung. It means Apple couldn't find any ninth-circuit
cases that they liked.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- important note - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 03:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT |
"if the basis for objection might have been discovered"
The thing that is worrisome about the decision is the term "might have
been" it's rather open ended.
It may simply mean that if Samsung failed to bring up an obvious question during
voir dire, or it may mean that Samsung failed top bring up a question that would
have caused them to bring up another question which would then have caused
Samsung to bring up another question etc.
Frankly I think that Samsung ent about as far as I would expect a law firm to
go, but with this judge who knows.
As I said before just when I am about to say that she may not be biased for
Apple she goes and does something that causes me to rethink that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
I think the key is that without knowing about the Seagate lawsuit and it's
connection to the bankruptcy, there'd be no reason to investigate the
bankruptcy. A lot of people file bankruptcy for a lot of good reasons, and
merely having gone through one is hardly a red flag saying "There's a connection
to this case here.". Only after you know the details of the Seagate case
does the bankruptcy take on meaning relevant to the current case.
I think
if Hogan hadn't said anything Apple might have an argument. But since Hogan
answered as he did during voir dire, giving the impression by omission that he
hadn't been involved in any legal action that'd've tied into the bankruptcy,
that bolsters the argument that Samsung had no good reason to go investigating
until after the verdict when Hogan started mentioning all the things he'd
omitted during voir dire. When questioning jury members you're required to ask
your questions then or forego objections, but you're not expected to go on a
fishing expedition trawling through every aspect of a potential juror's life on
the off-chance you'll find something relevant somewhere. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
