The Groklaw story has a link to the full transcript available at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725

The PDF is linked as "Exhibit 1" http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf

How can you think they're not accurately reporting when they link to the actual document? Do you think Groklaw is faking court records?

Have you ever clicked a Wikipedia citation? Half they time they don't support, or even contradict, the article's claims. Groklaw isn't Wikipedia, but they idea that an article with citations is infallible is ludicrous. People misrepresent, either intentionally or accidentally, what they've read all the time.

Are you claiming Groklaw fabricates court PDFs?

Otherwise,what the F did you just post?

I don't think they are claiming that at all. They are questioning Groklaw's unabashed partisanship. The thing that I find utterly absurd about these discussion is the partisanship that goes on. The Google and Android faithful are particularly bad in this area. They will call articles that disagree with their world view biased, yet an article that does is undeniable and unquestionable.

The F: Groklaw's summary of the PDF may be less than 100% accurate.

The actual Samsung court filing posted on Groklaw does not include the 10 year statement. See the filing here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013.pdf Page 13, line 10.

Though, there is an article on Bloomberg with a response from the jury foreman: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-03/samsung-claims-jury...

There he says the court specified a 10-year limit to the lawsuit question.

So the real question is: is the juror confused about what he was asked, or is Samsung trying to get the verdict thrown own by including a half-truth in their filing.

If Mr. Hogan introduced the 10 year limit himself, and if bankruptcy remained on his credit history for 10 years, that could serve as the starting point for an argument that he was thinking specifically about his own bankruptcy-inducing lawsuit during his deliberations.

One of the other jurors mentioned a case from more than 10 years ago. So we know that at least one of his fellow jurors did not believe that the inquiry was listed to the past 10 years.

We also know, per his own admission, that he had not forgotten about the case, but instead that he deliberately withheld that information, allegedly because he believed it irrelevant due to it having been so long ago.

Therefore, he has cleverly established that he intentionally disregarded the court's actual orders in favor of whatever he imagined the court's orders to be.

I read over the question in the transcript and there was no 10-year clause, but there was also no indication that he should disclose all previous cases. To me it read as the judge verifying with those people who had been in court before that they understood that the trial was not to be influenced by their own understanding of the law as it applied to previous cases. If he wanted a complete history of all the cases, he should have asked more directly. That said, Groklaw's transcript is missing 3 pages of the discussion, so I stopped reading shortly after the judge started talking to Hogan. Maybe he asked the question more specifically in those missing pages.