|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:47 PM EST |
Where was that? I must have missed it.
---
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: bprice on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST |
When the case was discovered, one of (para?)legals presumably said
"Oh!
That's X's husband!".
IIRC, it was the husband who spotted the
problem, when he saw Hogan blabbing to the news critters. The husband
recognized Hogan as the defendant/counterclaimant in one of his Seagate cases,
and discussed it with the wife, a partner in the firm.
Samsung then
disclosed the connection to prevent
Apple from picking it up and accusing them
of hiding it.
It doesn't seem to have been a preventative action on
Samsung's part: Apple had their verdict by the time Hogan was identified as a
miscreant. Why should Apple bring it up (except for reasons such as ethics and
court rules)?--- --Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|