YosemiteSam
Unfriendly and Aloof!
- Messages
- 45,858
- Reaction score
- 22,195
The jury foreman's credibility is shot to hell. The guy fail to mention he had been sued back in 1993 when directly asked by the judge. He was sued by Seagate in 1993. Samsung is the largest shareholder in Seagate.
It sounds to me like when he said he wanted to "punish" Samsung, that is EXACTLY what he was doing. Even though he was carefully directed that the jury was *not* to punish Samsung.
====================================
Samsung has now filed an unredacted version [PDF] of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it.
It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of "implied bias" and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous "evidence" of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure.
Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan failed to mention in voir dire, the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I'll show you. You wouldn't believe it if it was in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung.
What are the odds?
And did you read in Reuters [PDF, the B part] the story Hogan told about that litigation? Samsung shows that his story to Reuters is not the way it was in real life. There are, of course, materials in support, and they too are now unsealed.
Complete Story
It sounds to me like when he said he wanted to "punish" Samsung, that is EXACTLY what he was doing. Even though he was carefully directed that the jury was *not* to punish Samsung.
====================================
Samsung has now filed an unredacted version [PDF] of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it.
It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of "implied bias" and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous "evidence" of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure.
Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan failed to mention in voir dire, the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I'll show you. You wouldn't believe it if it was in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung.
What are the odds?
And did you read in Reuters [PDF, the B part] the story Hogan told about that litigation? Samsung shows that his story to Reuters is not the way it was in real life. There are, of course, materials in support, and they too are now unsealed.
Complete Story
