|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
Here is the cite of the case.
Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan,
Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993)
mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
against Samsung? That would be too bizarre and could land the poor guy in jail.
No joke. I think he is smarter than that. I would agree than revenge that has
simmered for 20 years is irresistible for some people. It would have to be
proved for me. I think he is just self important. Nothing morte.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
The case that he discusses appears that it would be different than this one, and
that's the only one he covers. Add onto that, several of Samsung's authorities
involve a juror who failed to disclose relevant facts during voir dire.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
IANAL, but I think much of the discussion is missing the point about Seagate vs
Hogan. To impeach the jury verdict, Samsung's counsel have to achieve two
things:
- Get Mr Hogan on the stand.
- Get him to confirm that he
used his outside knowledge to influence the verdict of other members of the jury
(acting as an unofficial witness). Given his public statements, that may be
quite difficult for him to avoid, assuming that Samsung's counsel can put the
question to him.
The cases about misstatements in voir dire are pretty
clear: Judge Koh will have to permit an examination of whether any misstatements
could have influenced the result of the trial. To do that, she will have to put
Mr Hogan on the stand. That satisfies the first step. I think that's the only
function of Seagate vs Hogan for Samsung counsel.
Once he's on the stand,
they will want to examine whether (as a result of Seagate vs Hogan, or for some
other reason) Mr Hogan used outside knowledge to influence other members of the
jury. By then, it won't matter whether the outside knowledge came from Seagate
vs Hogan, from his previous patent experience, or anywhere else. I doubt if they
will even look at Seagate vs Hogan.
I think the reason they're using Seagate
vs Hogan for step 1 is that it's cut and dried, and one of the precedents is
from a civil trial. For the other potential reasons for examining Mr Hogan, the
precedents are pretty murky (and also differentiated by being mostly on criminal
matters).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|