|
Authored by: designerfx on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
Seeing a new judge, who has the "I want this stuff out in the
open" aspects to begin with - even if she isn't aware of a
potential bias or concern of one, is at least a judge that's
starting things on a better foot than previous judges.
We can't just have all these judges of whom a majority don't
understand technology and are having the wool pulled over
their eyes or taking a very long time to catch up to speed
presiding over technology cases all the time. At least not
with the current situation we have, in my opinion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
I fail to see where the judge has any room to pontificate about Samsung
releasing anything to the press, unless the information was sealed by the court.
I'm no expert on logic, but if Samsung tried to introduce material into trial
evidence and the judge disallowed it, it is not evidence of any sort. What says
a party can't give that information to the public then? Apple has been beating
Samsung up in the press with releases, interviews and press conferences, so
what's the problem with Samsung defending itself in the press?
I'm also not a lawyer, but I've sat in on many a trial where the attorneys
stated that nothing a lawyer says in the trial is evidence unless the judge has
placed it into evidence, nothing a witness says is evidence unless the judge
places the statements into evidence and that none of the theatrics in the
courtroom is evidence. Maybe that is wrong and maybe it is right, or maybe
somewhere in between, but I still don't see where, unless a gag order has been
issued, a judge has any say so about how a party defends themselves in the
press.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
All companies a alike before the law, but some companies are more alike then
others.
Do I hear an echo of Animal Farm.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
Sure, and Judge Koh certainly seems like she's being quite the hardass in these
procedural rulings. But would she have the opportunity to do this if Samsung's
team had brought the defences up earlier?
It's more than probable that I'm misunderstanding here, but it
<i>sounds</i> like: Samsung's lawyers were a little tardy putting in
the paperwork, so some evidence is out (as well as: they didn't ensure that the
evidence to support what their expert witnesses were going to say was in the
record). I would have thought that these were bases that should have been
covered, even if you would tend to hope for a bit more leniency.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|