|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 03:23 PM EST |
If Apple had actual knowledge that the juror misrepresented himself or facts
they had a duty to come forward.
However knowing about his litigation and possible potential bias is somewhat
ambiguous to me.
Did Apple know he misstated facts? Or as they are now claiming did he answer the
questions he was asked. If Apple knew of the litigation did it mean that he was
biased? While the Samsung Seagate relationship is well known in the industry,
did the juror consider it? It seems to me that even being mad at Seagate he
might have not considered Samsung in any way connected.
However outrageous we may think his conduct was I haven't seen any direct link.
It is my opinion that his conduct is more related to his personality than to any
enmity for his former employer.
There is I think lots of room for argument, especially depending on what Apple
actually knew and when.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST |
I believe that if Apple attorneys knew that a juror lied under oath during
questioning, then they were required to so inform the court.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|