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
Hogan is talking again! | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Hogan is talking again!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
The funny thing (ironic) is that if you search by name for
"Hogan" or "Hogan Velvin" or even "Hogan Velvin
R", nothing
shows up. If you search with Seagate in the business name
(with nothing else in there--except for dates), you see
"Seagate vs. Velvin R. Hogan" (the case you referenced), but
nothing that says "Velvin R. Hogan vs. Seagate".

Unless they consolidated both cases, but I would imagine
that they would consolidate them under the first to file
(which Hogan claims was him).

Of course, IANAL.

Have a great day:)
Patrick.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Thanks for this! FACTS mustn't be allowed to bother my pet theories (grin!)(n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:42 PM EDT
N/t

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hogan is talking again!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT
Many have said "It will be tough for Samsung to show that a
20-year-old financial dispute between Hogan and his onetime
employer had a direct bearing on the jury award in this
case"

I do not understand ? The direct baring on the cases surly
is that he did forget to mention this and if he can get this
part of his oath wrong what other parts of his oath where
also wrong ?

The Judge asked a very clear question and only received a
partial response - this seems to be Mr Hogan's modus
operandi as later he tried to say the Judge had not asked
him the direct question "... you ever been involved in a
lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant or as a
witness?"

To me this last statement is the nail in the coffin as it
demonstrates nothing Mr Hogan says can be trusted. Samsung
lawyers only need to show this last outing to judge and
point out that if he can mistake what the judge said to him
how can any testimony be trusted ?

This must give the Judge an excellent way out - she cannot
be blamed for the unreliability of a Jury member.


[ 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 )