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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
additional possibilities | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:36 AM EST
I'm not sure Apple actually has those three choices. Either
the first or the second choice is *true*, but both cannot be.
So they have two choices: tell when they found out about the
lawsuit, or convince the judge they don't need to.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 12:15 PM EST
Knowing he worked for Seagate, Apple had as many reasons to
check as Samsung had. Because there could have been a bias
for Seagate and indirectly for Samsung.
If Apple did not check, and did not know, it destroys it's
own argument against Samsung. If Apple did check the
following question must be what did they exactly know.
No wonder that Apple tries not to answer.

That Apple doesn't accuse the foreman of misconduct is
beside the point. Apple declared that, following normal
procedures, Samsung, and thus also Apple, should have known
this. Apple had the same reason to check. Only the judge can
decide that, with what Apple knew, it was appropriate to
stay silent. And the judge can only do that if Apple answers
it's own question.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

additional possibilities
Authored by: IANALitj on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 12:23 PM EST
There are a lot of additional choices.

For example, lying would be a choice (one that we may or may not have seen in an
earlier round of this very controversy, during the voir dire). I do not know
which (if any) of Apple's lawyers are skilled in this particular art. Still, it
is another choice available to them.

As second example, equivocation would be another available choice. (That,
again, is something that we may or may not have seen in that earlier round of
this very controversy.) Apple's lawyers are probably very capable in this
particular art, whether they regularly practice it or not.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 02:26 PM EST

they can admit that they did not know about it, and that they have no valid reason to say that Samsung should have known. (and loose that point)
Based on previous history of complaining Samsung didn't keep records when Samsung had actually been keeping records BEFORE Apple, The Plaintiff, did, I would say based no the fact that Apple are loudly saying Samsung should have said earlier when when first found out, and that Apple is refusing to say when it learnt, that it is highly probable that Apple knew about it BEFORE Samsung did and they themselves DID NOTHING.

Of course, that can be easily disproved by Apple by stating clearly when they DID find out; unless, of course, the date Apple DID find out predates Samsung, or at a time Apple should have done something about it and obviously didn't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:31 PM EST
As I posted in the prior thread about this, the wording, Samsung wanting Apple
to comment 'upon threat of perjury' and now Apple doing everything it can to
wiggle out of this? They know something's bad, very, very bad, and are trying
to hide it. Samsung knows it too and wants Apple to blow it for themselves.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think that this misses the point - it's not the bankrupcy that is at issue
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 03:30 AM EST
It would seem that Groklaw readers have fallen for a mis-direction in Apple's
response. It isn't the bankrupcy that is at issue, it's the lawsuit Seagate
filed against him.

Samsung's attorneys may have known about the bankruptcy, but the record of the
bankruptcy didn't disclose the lawsuit so knowing about the bankruptcy wouldn't
have led to knowledge about the lawsuit and it's the lawsuit that is at issue,
not the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy petition doesn't mention a lawsuit or
judgement.

As I understand it, a bankruptcy petition is not a lawsuit and his failure to
disclose that, in my opinion, sails fairly close to the wind, but was
probably/possibly not a falsehood. On the other hand, the lawsuit by Seagate
against him was unavoidably within the scope of the voir dire question and his
response was, in my view, clearly deceptive.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 12:29 PM EST
Can't Samsung compel each and every member of Apple's jury consultation team to
state what they knew, and when they knew it, about this specific juror?

Also require them to produce all emails about this case, that were sent between
Apple management, Apple's legal team, and Apple's jury consultation team.

[ 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 )