Groklaw coverage is a convenient place for the latest links, but their commentary is beyond biased. They attempt to color what you're about to read.
Here's a particularly obvious example:
Commentary:
Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn't asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire.
No, Hogan was not "specifically asked ... to list all cases" according either Samsung's filing or the linked transcript.
At least Samsung's filing gets it right:
Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others...
Sorry, Groklaw, Hogan was not "specifically" asked to "list all" cases. The actual question, including sentences before and after for context (all caps in transcript):
LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS? LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION?
ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.
The question "specifically" asks about the singular, "a lawsuit". Note the phrase "who would raise their hand to that?" It's a binary question.
At the time of the question, it wasn't about patents, it was to determine if jurors have encountered the court system as a participant, yes or no. The followup questions did drill into the nature of the case Hogan mentioned, but the judge didn't follow up further because that wasn't the purpose of the original question.
Skipping down in the transcript a bit, the judge tells us the purpose of the "have you been involved in a lawsuit" question:
WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
This makes it clear the question wasn't how many cases the juror was involved in, but whether the juror had been exposed to concepts around rule of law in different types of cases. The judge continues:
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
So no, Hogan was responsive and accurate and the question was not asking for an itemized list of cases. It was to set up the point about standards of proof and judicial instructions.
I find it amazing you would write a 557 word reply and not include the following critical statement from the court that completely refutes your entire point about the court's intention in asking that question, and fully supports Samsung's argument:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT
THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO
BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE? [1, p149:14]
This was a DIRECT question to Hogan. He and his wife both filed for bankruptcy as a result of Seagate's 1993 countersuit and nearly lost his house [2]. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to wonder if he bears a grudge against Seagate and its currently majority shareholder, Samsung. If I were the judge I'd be furious.
Samsung is not the majority shareholder of Seagate. Samsung owns almost 10% of Seagate which makes them the single largest holder of stock but definitely not the majority.
This transaction also took place in 2011 when Seagate bought Samsung's HD unit and as part of the deal Samsung got a chunk of Seagate in return.
How would hurting Samsung hurt Seagate? It would only really matter if Seagate had a large stake in Samsung, would it not?
In order to pay the billion dollar fine, Samsung could be forced to liquidate some of its assets, including its stake in Seagate. This in turn could cause the price of Seagate to drop.
The billion dollar fine is two weeks of Samsungs last quarter operating profits. I very much doubt they're losing any sleep worrying about having to liquidate any assets.
Is it not possible that he didn't know that Seagate was owned by Samsung (I didn't)? Or at least not blame them for the actions of Seagate nearly 20 years ago.
It would have been a lot easier to believe that if he hadn't now a couple of times insisted the question was limited to ten years, in direct contradiction of the transcript, and have lashed out at Samsung and insinuated they intentionally got him on the jury to use this to get a retrial.
His reaction makes me question his credibility. But of course it is possible that he genuinely didn't know.
> I find it amazing you would write a 557 word reply and not include the following critical statement from the court that completely refutes your entire point about the court's intention in asking that question,
It's not possible for this statement to refute my point about the court's intention in asking the original question. Your quote comes after the show of hands question, and before the judge's own explanation of why the show of hands question was asked. Your quote is not part of the judge's explanation. We have to take the judge at her words.
What's more, to have anything to do with the Seagate issue, this question would have had to be have been phrased:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE, __OR ANY OTHER ENCOUNTER WITH THE COURT SYSTEM__, THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE?
That wasn't the phrasing, and the judge immediately followed the narrow question with returning to an explanation of the original "would anyone raise their hand" binary question: just want to make sure you jurors know this case may have different process and rules. The context shows what was on the judge's mind at the start and the end.
> and fully supports Samsung's argument:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE? [1, p149:14]
If it were such a linchpin, Samsung would have included it in the filing. It's not.
Even if the judge had been asking about the Seagate case, which the judge was not, Hogan could -- in his mind -- truthfully answer "No" to this question. It's not easily falsifiable. For all we know, a juror may not be the sort to hold grudges, or may have an infinite "ability to be fair and impartial to both sides" even if one side stole his pancakes and the other side saved his life. This is why the law has restrictions on someone testifying as to a defendant's state of mind.
"that experience" is referring to Mr. Hogan's experience being sued by someone who worked for him. So he's being asked whether experience with a particular lawsuit would affect his ability to be fair and impartial, not whether he's capable of being fair and impartial.
Ali haven't bothered to read the transcript, but I cannot imagine that "THAT EXPERIENCE" can in any way refer to a case that wasn't mentioned in the trial.
"That experience" properly refers to his "ever [having] participated in a lawsuit" in which he failed to disclose the whole truth, as he promised to. It's pretty strange to leave out the case that cost you your house. His failure to disclose a relevant case when questioned by the judge is inexplicable.
He also claimed during voire dire that he would set aside his understanding of the law from any past cases. Then he gave media interviews in which he talked about using his past, incorrect knowledge, told interviewers about doing things that were contrary to the court's instructions, and explained how he turned around the jury's verdict.
Oh, and he also claimed that the court only asked him about 10 years back to one interviewer: a claim that has proven to be inaccurate both due to that not having been said and due to another juror remembering a case older than that.
> EDIT: Personally I'm amazed they find so many patent holders and so few active Facebook users among the potential jurors.
I find that it helps explain the verdict, personally.
EDIT: Hey Cloven? You commented right below me, but all of your comments started going dead a couple months ago. I'm not sure why. They don't appear offensive.
Here's a particularly obvious example:
Commentary:
Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn't asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire.
No, Hogan was not "specifically asked ... to list all cases" according either Samsung's filing or the linked transcript.
At least Samsung's filing gets it right:
Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others...
Sorry, Groklaw, Hogan was not "specifically" asked to "list all" cases. The actual question, including sentences before and after for context (all caps in transcript):
LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS? LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.
The question "specifically" asks about the singular, "a lawsuit". Note the phrase "who would raise their hand to that?" It's a binary question.
At the time of the question, it wasn't about patents, it was to determine if jurors have encountered the court system as a participant, yes or no. The followup questions did drill into the nature of the case Hogan mentioned, but the judge didn't follow up further because that wasn't the purpose of the original question.
Skipping down in the transcript a bit, the judge tells us the purpose of the "have you been involved in a lawsuit" question:
WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
This makes it clear the question wasn't how many cases the juror was involved in, but whether the juror had been exposed to concepts around rule of law in different types of cases. The judge continues:
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
So no, Hogan was responsive and accurate and the question was not asking for an itemized list of cases. It was to set up the point about standards of proof and judicial instructions.