5 ms·

Given the amount of money that goes into Juror Analysis in huge cases like this, is it possible Samsung knew about this all along and was keeping as an ace up t

Given the amount of money that goes into Juror Analysis in huge cases like this, is it possible Samsung knew about this all along and was keeping as an ace up their sleeve in case they lost?

thrill 14y ago
I believe that is entirely possible, legal, and wise.
- vidarh 14y ago
  It might be legal, but if found out it would almost certainly get their motion denied, which is why Apple aggressively pursued a statement from Samsung about whether or not they knew. As a result, Samsung has made a declaration they did not know, and so at this point if it later turns out they did now, they're in trouble.
- eco 14y ago
  More wise would have been just to remove him from the jury during jury selection. Overturning a jury's decision is pretty rare.
caf 14y ago
In filing #2012 Samsung says this: 3. In response to Samsung’s motion detailing Velvin Hogan’s failure to reveal his litigation with Seagate during voir dire and its impact on the integrity of the trial and the verdict, Apple demanded that Samsung disclose the timing of its knowledge regarding those facts. A true and correct copy of Apple’s email, along with further correspondence between counsel for the parties that resulted in Apple’s agreement that any such disclosures would not constitute a waiver of any privilege, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. By way of separate declaration, Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate until after the verdict. To date, Apple has not revealed whether it was aware of Mr. Hogan’s litigation against Seagate prior to the verdict or prior to Samsung’s Motion.
NegativeK 14y ago
According to Groklaw, Apple asked via email and Samsung has denied this in a filing. "By way of separate declaration, Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate until after the verdict." --Samsung, #2012 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

Given the amount of money that goes into Juror Analysis in huge cases like this, is it possible Samsung knew about this all along and was keeping as an ace up their sleeve in case they lost?

thrill 14y ago

I believe that is entirely possible, legal, and wise.

vidarh 14y ago
It might be legal, but if found out it would almost certainly get their motion denied, which is why Apple aggressively pursued a statement from Samsung about whether or not they knew. As a result, Samsung has made a declaration they did not know, and so at this point if it later turns out they did now, they're in trouble.
eco 14y ago
More wise would have been just to remove him from the jury during jury selection. Overturning a jury's decision is pretty rare.

caf 14y ago

In filing #2012 Samsung says this: 3. In response to Samsung’s motion detailing Velvin Hogan’s failure to reveal his litigation with Seagate during voir dire and its impact on the integrity of the trial and the verdict, Apple demanded that Samsung disclose the timing of its knowledge regarding those facts. A true and correct copy of Apple’s email, along with further correspondence between counsel for the parties that resulted in Apple’s agreement that any such disclosures would not constitute a waiver of any privilege, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. By way of separate declaration, Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate until after the verdict. To date, Apple has not revealed whether it was aware of Mr. Hogan’s litigation against Seagate prior to the verdict or prior to Samsung’s Motion.

NegativeK 14y ago

According to Groklaw, Apple asked via email and Samsung has denied this in a filing. "By way of separate declaration, Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate until after the verdict." --Samsung, #2012 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770