|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 05:43 PM EST |
"Jury verdicts are sacrosanct and only in extreme cases
should they be reviewed. This is one such case."
No, it isn't. Really. The gold standard will always be
Tanner. Unless you can show something *extrinsic* to the
jury, it's always a losing argument.
"So not only did Hogan see it as his role to punish Samsung,
it was apparently his role to graciously decide that
corporal rather than capital punishment was appropriate."
Again, you're choosing to use your own language rather than
what's in there. The jury found for Samsung on some of
Apple's claims. Hogan did not use the word "punish". There
were no punitive damages. Apple received less than what they
were asking for. And Hogan was not the only person on the
jury.
"If they knew about it at the time. I am not sure how voir
dire actually works over there, but does a legal team have
an opportunity to take a response to a question, do a bit of
research for a day, then come back and continue?"
They could have asked *any question*. Again, the basis of
Samsung's claim post hoc was that the Seagate/Samsung
connection was so amazingly obvious that it constituted
grounds in and of itself. Yet when it was disclosed, Samsung
chose to ask questions about Hogan's hobbies- not about his
relationship and employment with Seagate. Moreover, Samsung
knew of the bankruptcy the day of voir dire, and didn't
review the file until after the verdict.
In essence, all of this is a constant fact of litigation.
Mistakes are made. On appeal, they are almost all harmless
error. The two biggest loser arguments, almost always, are
to accuse the judge and the jury of having it out for you.
Because if they did, you can probably win the appeal on a
different ground, and you won't look like an idiot for
raising it. :)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 02:15 AM EST |
Saved me the trouble of digging up sources.
I could do a point by point rebuttal, but its clear the above poster does not
want to be convinced. He is guilty of the bias we are so often accused of
letting cloud our reasoning.
---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg
100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
