Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

It's a question of what's in the record | 170 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

It's a question of what's in the record

Authored by: hardmath on Sunday, December 09 2012 @ 08:21 AM EST

These voluntary admissions by Hogan are disturbing and tend
to discredit the conclusions reached by the jury. But as
post-facto accounts published after the jury was discharged
in this case, they are not properly speaking evidence (yet)
for the court to be concerned with.

Samsung is understandably trying to bring in this evidence,
yet the judge (also understandably) is trying to bring the
case to a close (from the point of the trial; appellate
proceedings must await that completion, unless the judge
gives special permission for the parties to appeal a partial
conclusion, as happened here with the injunction over a
claimed infringement that the jury did not find valid).

May I pass you the popcorn?

---
Recursion is the opprobrium of the mathists.

[ 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 )