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
Is this really a "no one knew" answer? | 219 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple's Nerve: About the Jury Foreman
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:02 PM EST
Since the jury foreman didn't state the bankruptcy when he
was asked about litigation he had been involved in,
shouldn't Apple have brought the bankruptcy to the attention
of the court? I think this shows Apple had unclean hands.
That they failed to bring to the courts attention of failure
of a juror to correctly answer voir dire. They knew of
additional litigation he was a part of and didn't bring it
to the attention of the court. How can this not be held
against Apple? IANAL, but it seems logical to me that Apple
should have told the court of the additional litigation,
once they found it. It shouldn't matter if they felt it was
relevant, aren't they required to correct anything that they
know isn't correct in the record?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Being called out in Open Court is Far Worse
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:05 PM EST
The impact of Apple being ordered to disclose in Open Court or in the
alternative pleading for time to check is far more damaging than an electronic
filing.

---
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 | # ]

Is this really a "no one knew" answer?
Authored by: yorkshireman on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 04:55 AM EST

Like Webster, I find Apple's answer inconsistent with their behaviour on the matter of Hogan's litigation history

"... We have not identified any attorney or other member of the litigation teams who was aware"

Could this be an admission that someone outside the "litigation teams" did know?

For instance, Maybe the litigation team asked a specialist "research team" to undertake this search instead?

If this were the case, could the "research team" have standing instructions only to pass on helpful results to the litigation team in anticipation of this exact scenario?

Is the term "litigation team" sufficiently tightly defined in a law firm that this is definitely a "no one knew" answer?

 

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Bankruptcy requests on file?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:17 AM EST
If the only way to obtain the bankruptcy filing is via a request then hopefully any requests for the bankruptcy are kept on file for some period of time. So those records should indicate who requested that information and when. I would think any request before the verdict to be rather suspicious. But unless someone can show otherwise this will probably end with this.

I hope the Judge provides some meaningful punishment to Apple for time wasting since time schedules seem to be very important for her.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

s/accused Seagate/accused Samsung/
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 02:09 PM EST
As far as known, Apple has not accused
Seagate of any wrongdoings.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ 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 )