|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST |
We have not identified any attorney or other member of the
litigation teams who was aware that Mr. Hogan had been a party to lawsuits
involving Seagate until after the conclusion of trial, when Samsung raised the
matter in connection with its post-trial motions.
If they
haven't identified anyone who was aware until after the conclusion
of trial, then surely that reads as they all knew before it ended?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 08:58 PM EST |
Shifting the commas, adding emphasis, here's another version:
We have not identified
"any attorney or other member of the litigation teams"
who was aware ...
Reading between the lines, we may well have a truckload of blogsters
who claim intimate knowledge of Mr Hogan's laundry, but that won't
stick in a federal court.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:03 PM EST |
Assuming the lawyers are ethical (and most are and the firms certainly are
)there would have been a reasonably through search to determine if anyone knew.
I am pretty confident that no one on Apple's legal team knew. The risk of
exposure is too great to tolerate anything else.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 12:55 AM EST |
I note that they seem to have failed to say that they didn't
know.
They said that attorneys didn't know and members of the
litigation team didn't know. They didn't say that past
members of the litigation teams didn't know. Or past
attorneys (if there are any). Nor did they include Apple
management.
The thing about the ducking and diving to arrive at this
point, makes me think that this may be a very carefully
constructed notice.
I think someone knew.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 09:31 AM EST |
Once watchers catch on that you're willing to be .... generous in your
interpretations of words, your every word becomes suspect even if (in the end)
they do turn out to be the truth.
Did Apple truly not know?
Then
perhaps if they want people to believe them at their word, they should stop
playing the word games.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 10:10 AM EST |
Maybe what really happened is something like this:
"We sent an email to 100 of the people involved in the case asking if they
knew before Samsung disclosed, (and explaining the implications and consequences
of any such knowledge) and 90 of them emailed back saying they had no knowledge,
so we have not identified anyone with knowledge."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:21 AM EST |
I don't think a judge would take kindly to a statement like this if it were
found to be false. Knowing about the Seagate suit is one thing, but lying about
knowing it is perjury. What's worse?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 06:16 PM EST |
We have not identified any attorney or other member of the
litigation teams who was aware that Mr. Hogan had been a party to lawsuits
involving Seagate until after the conclusion of trial, when Samsung
raised the matter in connection with its post-trial motions.
One way to
read this is that, yes, someone involved in the case on the Apple side was
aware, and that Apple did identify them *after*
the conclusion of
trial.
Once they realized that Samsung was making an issue about it.
It
is a great weasel-word sentence, and can be parsed in
a different manner, in
that they can be saying that, yeah,
maybe someone did know, but it was not any
member of the litigation team.
Clear as mud.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
