|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST |
Well, you certainly went to a lot of trouble. But
you forgot earlier filings.
Here's one
media
example [PDF] that Samsung filed with the court.
I recall another one
too, but I couldn't find it
quickly. As a rule of thumb, lawyers don't
say
something unless they can prove it. So don't
be so quick to find fault, at least
not until you
have done your homework more thoroughly. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:29 PM EST |
You are missing the point. Samsung is not making a charge or even attempting to
insinuate that Hogan in fact had financial ties to Apple. Samsung is merely
explaining why it was motivated, after the verdict, to request Hogan's
bankruptcy file since it may show whether there were such ties or otherwise
reveal financial information related to his apparent lack of impartiality. That
bankruptcy file showed not financial ties to Apple, but a suit against Seagate
that Hogan failed to disclose during voir dire, which is what Samsung' motion is
based on. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|