6 ms·

Groklaw's take on this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

by mih 14y ago

vvhn 14y ago
Looking at Groklaw's overall coverage of this, you have to wonder if she and not Quinn Emanuel are Samsung's legal team :-)
macchina 14y ago
The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung. Wow. Pretty bizarre coincidence, but I can't imagine Hogan was aware of this at trial.
Terretta 14y ago
Groklaw coverage is a convenient place for the latest links, but their commentary is beyond biased. They attempt to color what you're about to read. Here's a particularly obvious example: Commentary: Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn't asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire. No, Hogan was not "specifically asked ... to list all cases" according either Samsung's filing or the linked transcript. At least Samsung's filing gets it right: Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others... Sorry, Groklaw, Hogan was not "specifically" asked to "list all" cases. The actual question, including sentences before and after for context (all caps in transcript): LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS? LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN. The question "specifically" asks about the singular, "a lawsuit". Note the phrase "who would raise their hand to that?" It's a binary question. At the time of the question, it wasn't about patents, it was to determine if jurors have encountered the court system as a participant, yes or no. The followup questions did drill into the nature of the case Hogan mentioned, but the judge didn't follow up further because that wasn't the purpose of the original question. Skipping down in the transcript a bit, the judge tells us the purpose of the "have you been involved in a lawsuit" question: WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? This makes it clear the question wasn't how many cases the juror was involved in, but whether the juror had been exposed to concepts around rule of law in different types of cases. The judge continues: AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES. So no, Hogan was responsive and accurate and the question was not asking for an itemized list of cases. It was to set up the point about standards of proof and judicial instructions.
- Cloven 14y ago
  when you are asked if you've ever been involved in a lawsuit, the reasonable assumption that the person is interested in knowing of your involvement in lawsuits, not if you are capable of picking and choosing a single lawsuit and describing it. Reading it any other way is so ridiculous that you have to be kidding.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lusr 14y ago
  I find it amazing you would write a 557 word reply and not include the following critical statement from the court that completely refutes your entire point about the court's intention in asking that question, and fully supports Samsung's argument: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE? [1, p149:14] This was a DIRECT question to Hogan. He and his wife both filed for bankruptcy as a result of Seagate's 1993 countersuit and nearly lost his house [2]. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to wonder if he bears a grudge against Seagate and its currently majority shareholder, Samsung. If I were the judge I'd be furious. [1] http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/uploadedFiles/Reuters_Content/2012/09_-_September/samsung--completejurorvoirdire.pdf http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/uploadedFiles/Reute... [2] http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=57594 http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews...
  - josephlord 14y ago
    Is it not possible that he didn't know that Seagate was owned by Samsung (I didn't)? Or at least not blame them for the actions of Seagate nearly 20 years ago.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      It would have been a lot easier to believe that if he hadn't now a couple of times insisted the question was limited to ten years, in direct contradiction of the transcript, and have lashed out at Samsung and insinuated they intentionally got him on the jury to use this to get a retrial. His reaction makes me question his credibility. But of course it is possible that he genuinely didn't know.
kenjackson 14y ago
Can anyone point to the actual transcript where Hogan is asked if he has been part of another lawsuit. I want to really see if the 10 year clause is in there or not. I frankly just don't trust Groklaw to accurately report this story.
- parfe 14y ago
  The Groklaw story has a link to the full transcript available at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725 The PDF is linked as "Exhibit 1" http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf How can you think they're not accurately reporting when they link to the actual document? Do you think Groklaw is faking court records?
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Have you ever clicked a Wikipedia citation? Half they time they don't support, or even contradict, the article's claims. Groklaw isn't Wikipedia, but they idea that an article with citations is infallible is ludicrous. People misrepresent, either intentionally or accidentally, what they've read all the time.
    - parfe 14y ago
      Are you claiming Groklaw fabricates court PDFs? Otherwise,what the F did you just post?
      - sbuk 14y ago
        I don't think they are claiming that at all. They are questioning Groklaw's unabashed partisanship. The thing that I find utterly absurd about these discussion is the partisanship that goes on. The Google and Android faithful are particularly bad in this area. They will call articles that disagree with their world view biased, yet an article that does is undeniable and unquestionable.
      - 14y ago

Groklaw's take on this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

by mih 14y ago

Groklaw's take on this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

vvhn 14y ago

Looking at Groklaw's overall coverage of this, you have to wonder if she and not Quinn Emanuel are Samsung's legal team :-)

macchina 14y ago

The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung. Wow. Pretty bizarre coincidence, but I can't imagine Hogan was aware of this at trial.

Terretta 14y ago

Groklaw coverage is a convenient place for the latest links, but their commentary is beyond biased. They attempt to color what you're about to read. Here's a particularly obvious example: Commentary: Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn't asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire. No, Hogan was not "specifically asked ... to list all cases" according either Samsung's filing or the linked transcript. At least Samsung's filing gets it right: Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others... Sorry, Groklaw, Hogan was not "specifically" asked to "list all" cases. The actual question, including sentences before and after for context (all caps in transcript): LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS? LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN. The question "specifically" asks about the singular, "a lawsuit". Note the phrase "who would raise their hand to that?" It's a binary question. At the time of the question, it wasn't about patents, it was to determine if jurors have encountered the court system as a participant, yes or no. The followup questions did drill into the nature of the case Hogan mentioned, but the judge didn't follow up further because that wasn't the purpose of the original question. Skipping down in the transcript a bit, the judge tells us the purpose of the "have you been involved in a lawsuit" question: WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? This makes it clear the question wasn't how many cases the juror was involved in, but whether the juror had been exposed to concepts around rule of law in different types of cases. The judge continues: AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES. So no, Hogan was responsive and accurate and the question was not asking for an itemized list of cases. It was to set up the point about standards of proof and judicial instructions.

Cloven 14y ago
when you are asked if you've ever been involved in a lawsuit, the reasonable assumption that the person is interested in knowing of your involvement in lawsuits, not if you are capable of picking and choosing a single lawsuit and describing it. Reading it any other way is so ridiculous that you have to be kidding.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lusr 14y ago
I find it amazing you would write a 557 word reply and not include the following critical statement from the court that completely refutes your entire point about the court's intention in asking that question, and fully supports Samsung's argument: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE? [1, p149:14] This was a DIRECT question to Hogan. He and his wife both filed for bankruptcy as a result of Seagate's 1993 countersuit and nearly lost his house [2]. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to wonder if he bears a grudge against Seagate and its currently majority shareholder, Samsung. If I were the judge I'd be furious. [1] http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/uploadedFiles/Reuters_Content/2012/09_-_September/samsung--completejurorvoirdire.pdf http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/uploadedFiles/Reute... [2] http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=57594 http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews...
- josephlord 14y ago
  Is it not possible that he didn't know that Seagate was owned by Samsung (I didn't)? Or at least not blame them for the actions of Seagate nearly 20 years ago.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    It would have been a lot easier to believe that if he hadn't now a couple of times insisted the question was limited to ten years, in direct contradiction of the transcript, and have lashed out at Samsung and insinuated they intentionally got him on the jury to use this to get a retrial. His reaction makes me question his credibility. But of course it is possible that he genuinely didn't know.

kenjackson 14y ago

Can anyone point to the actual transcript where Hogan is asked if he has been part of another lawsuit. I want to really see if the 10 year clause is in there or not. I frankly just don't trust Groklaw to accurately report this story.

parfe 14y ago
The Groklaw story has a link to the full transcript available at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725 The PDF is linked as "Exhibit 1" http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf How can you think they're not accurately reporting when they link to the actual document? Do you think Groklaw is faking court records?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Have you ever clicked a Wikipedia citation? Half they time they don't support, or even contradict, the article's claims. Groklaw isn't Wikipedia, but they idea that an article with citations is infallible is ludicrous. People misrepresent, either intentionally or accidentally, what they've read all the time.
  - parfe 14y ago
    Are you claiming Groklaw fabricates court PDFs? Otherwise,what the F did you just post?
    - sbuk 14y ago
      I don't think they are claiming that at all. They are questioning Groklaw's unabashed partisanship. The thing that I find utterly absurd about these discussion is the partisanship that goes on. The Google and Android faithful are particularly bad in this area. They will call articles that disagree with their world view biased, yet an article that does is undeniable and unquestionable.
    - 14y ago