|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 03:29 AM EDT |
Was he told that? Is he supposed to know that?
I know I keep banging that drum, but you know American law a lot better than I
do. As a non-American, thanks to you, I probably know American law a lot better
than the average American. I'm wary of Hogan - with his experience he *should*
know more, but that's no guarantee he *does*.
I know the saying says "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", but I
still feel it is unreasonable to expect a non-lawyer to know what the law says -
heck it's unreasonable to expect a lawyer to know it all - what chance does a
layperson have!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT |
"Look at the mess this juror has caused, and don't influence others to
think it's all right to cause such a mess. "
But the mess he caused and what was said during the voir dire are two different
points. You do not have to have big master plan in order to take conclusions
after seeing only one side arguments. You do not need anti-samsung plan from the
beginning in order to think you know it all without seeing evidence.
All you need is to be arrogant and stupid enough, which Hogan seems to be. Look
at his interviews, he through how great and smart he was and how good he did, he
had no idea that his ideas about prior art are stupid.
The sad thing is that the mess he caused does not seem to be a strong reason for
appeal. It is easier to appeal on procedural misunderstanding than to appeal
"ignored the law while making the judgement".
The mess he caused is the same whether he lied on purpose or was just confused.
Samsung needs technical reason for appeal, because the system does not care
whether the result is fair or not and that is what this argument is about.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|