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
Juror Misconduct - Nightmare issue for Apple | 107 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sounds encouraging... n/t
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 04:39 PM EST

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Juror Misconduct - Nightmare issue for Apple
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 04:53 PM EST
"the more furious the Judge is gonna be"

I thought Koh is furious 24/7?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

[Apple] hiding their mirth from the Samsung side
Authored by: BJ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 05:46 PM EST
Suppose one of the parties knew or discovered early what Hogan had been
involved in. That prob. means they had ample reason to assume the other
party also knew what they knew. Seems to me a matter of strategic sense
and sanity.

None of them speak out. Maybe this is a speculation (gamble) on the judge's
failing to ask unambiguous questions during voir dire.
Or I should say: the knowing party doesn't speak up (poss. thinking "they
don't, we don't"), and the other side doesn't know and has nothing to speak
up about.

Samsung has gone on the record and stated they knew nothing. The
presumed parity in knowledge vis a vis Hogan is now quickly seen in retrospect
as a disparity.
Nothing Apple or the Judge can say to Samsung will take away Samsung's
rightfully strong feelings about his disparity; it's a strong mind that's gonna
tell them: "it didn't play a role".

bjd


[ 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 )