|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
SR...there is a thread that has some details on that...but to bring that thread here...which would be better...I copied some of it to get things going again here.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=2825419
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I notice that Apple has lost in the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands. I wonder what is so different in the US case? |
The last few posts go like this.
| alongway wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| it's going to get worse than that. Apparently the jury foreman lost a lawsuit to the wife of the guy working on the samsung team and never disclosed it. That verdict is going to get tossed. |
Seriously? |
Very. He used to be an employee of seagate, borrowed some money for some reason, failed to pay it back got sued by them, Samsung is a major shareholder in seagate. The woman who was on the legal team who sued him is married to the lead lawyer or something like that on the current samsung team. |
ok...found the link on your info.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-03/samsung-claims-jury-foreman-misconduct-tainted-apple-case.html
This is great drama.
So...this may partly explain why the US decision went the way it did.
Time will tell. |
That's a stretch by Samsung. So an attorney filed a complaint against the jury foreman (Hogan). That attorney worked for Seagate, which has some relationship with Samsung. That attorney was also married to an attorney who worked for Samsung.
So what did Hogan do after receiving the complaint 20 YEARS AGO? He filed bankruptcy. He thus evaded the suit. Controversy ended.
The connection is really tenuous. Hogan probably wasn't aware he was "involved in a lawsuit" because he never answered the complaint and instead filed for bankruptcy. He probably glanced at the complaint, listed the suit in a bankruptcy petition, and forgot about it.
Did everyone just miss the part where the judge lifted the preliminary injunction? You guys should know that Apple posted a $2.6 million bond which Samsung may now keep. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20121001235607439 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing tenuous about it.
1) He was asked if he was involved in any lawsuits. he lied
2) The spouse of the person who drove you to bankruptcy is working at the firm of the trial you're going to decide
his statements after the fact were close to enough to consider tossing the verdict in the first place, now add this tie in and it looks extremely suspicious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
2) The spouse of the person who drove you to bankruptcy is working at the firm of the trial you're going to decide
|
Collection complaints are forms. So a lawyer signs his name to a collection complaint, and this has what connection to the lawyer's wife, exactly? Its truly tenuous. Most collection suits are resolved in default judgment or bankruptcy. They are rarely litigated. I could easily see how a non-lawyer would forget about one twenty years later. I cannot imagine how such a suit, when Samsung was not even a party, could impact a juror's decision.
Any judge who tosses a verdict over this leaves herself vulnerable on appeal even under an abuse of discretion standard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| and this has what connection to the lawyer's wife, exactly? |
The way I read it is that the woman, who is also a lawyer sued him years ago. He declared bankruptcy. That woman's spouse is also a lawyer in the firm of the case he's deciding. The connection is very obvious and real.
A woman ruined him years ago, he now has a chance to ruin something for that woman's husband.
His comments made it clear that he was doing some rather creative work on interpretations and guiding the jury which was raising all kinds of questions before this was even found out. This is just motivation for why he did what he did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
