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.

Grudges don't always follow rational courses of action.

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.