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
What Judge Koh doesn't mention. | 107 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What Judge Koh doesn't mention.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 02:19 PM EST
I'm not sure that is absolutely the case.

They could argue that the Seagate matter contained in the bankruptcy case is
immaterial since it appeared to be a routine collection matter and that the
lawyers involved were not aware of the significance of Seagate. They may argue
they didn't know. They have argued that the Judge and Samsung were satisfied and
it was not their responsibility to do Samsung's job for it and if either Samsung
or the Judge had more questions they should have inquired further. They have
further argued that the alleged bias stemming from Seagate was not for them to
discover but for Samsung to find. They could even argue that it is a hazard
inherent in the jury selection process and that the benefits of jury trial
outweighs the occasional problem.

I'm not saying any of these are good arguments but that there are arguments and
it is not as cut and dried as some seem to think.

I tend to think Apple should have come forward if they knew something (which
they haven't admitted).

That does not excuse Hogan but I can also see how during the questioning that
got somehow lost.

I also tend to think the Judge should have asked a final followup to Hogan's
statement along the lines of "Anything Else?" It seems to me that
should almost always be done in this situation.

It seem that Hogan was given and inordinate amount of attention during voir dire
and that alone should have raised red flags. It would be interesting to know who
was dismissed peremptorily by both parties, that they felt were worse bets that
Hogan.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ 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 )