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
Samsung works in another little dig at Apple... | 152 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Samsung works in another little dig at Apple...
Authored by: indyandy on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:38 AM EST

I hope someone can find a good quote on teh internets because I checked several screensful of Google searches without finding anything helpful.

It does look a bit like Samsung has overstepped somewhat with a mixture of wikipeding and chinese whispering.

Wikipeding: the citations loop round to Quinn Emmanuel and end there. No external links:

[Samsung's posting featured in this Groklaw article]

Apple argues (Opp. 1-2) that Samsung waived its juror bias argument by failing to make it sooner, but Samsung could not reasonably have ascertained Mr. Hogan’s dishonesty before the jury’s verdicts. As Samsung has made clear and Apple cannot dispute, Mr. Hogan made public statements after the verdicts that so clearly favored Apple that the press speculated about their possible financial ties. Dkt. 2022, ¶4.

(my emphasis)

So what does Docket 2022, para 4 tell us?

Not a lot. It was filed in error...

[2022] 10/04/2012
AFFIDAVIT of Michael T. Zeller in Support of Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: *** # (1) Exhibit FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT LOCKED. DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED LATER. *** )(Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 10/4/2012) Modified on 10/5/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF).

... and presumably replaced by 2025 which has a similar title.

[2025] 10/05/2012
CORRECTED EXHIBITS A - I to [2022] the Zeller Affidavit in Support of Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Related document(s)[2022]) (Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 10/5/2012) Modified text on 10/9/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). Modified text on 10/9/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

Para 4 says...

4. More specifically, after the verdict and after the publication of press accounts raising questions about Mr. Hogan's impartiality, Samsung requested and subsequently received on September 10, 2012 a copy of the bankruptcy court file from In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan, Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993), a copy of which is Dkt. No. 1990 (“Estrich Decl.”) Ex. B. That bankruptcy court file included papers showing that Seagate Technology, Inc. had filed litigation against Mr. Hogan in Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, MS 93-0919 (Santa Cruz Sup. Ct.) (attached as Exhibit A to the Estrich Decl., Dkt. 1990). This was the first time Samsung learned of any litigation between Mr. Hogan and Seagate. These same papers in the bankruptcy court file showed that Seagate’s attorney in the lawsuit was Michael Grady, a fact which Samsung also had not known prior to the verdict and prior to obtaining the bankruptcy court file.
(My emphasis)

So by a process I choose to attribute to Chinese Whispers, "raising questions about Mr. Hogan's impartiality" mutated into "speculated about their possible financial ties". I could also believe that Docket 2022 DID use those words and was toned down to use the wording in Docket 2025, but when today's filing was done the author went to the wrong document.

I thought hard before submitting this post as I feel Samsung deserves every break they can get, but then realized that if I can spot this then Apple's legal team will do so in a microsecond, and PJ's interest on this site has always been the truth whether for or against Apple.

If anyone can find an article to back up Samsung's statement I think it would be a good time to save it and send a link...

[ 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 )