|
Authored by: AlexWright on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
Doesn't she know that this is setting herself up to be
smacked down by the appeal courts?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
The way i understand it, she doesn't have to do anything and will not get in
trouble for it because the whole purpose of the appeals court is to make sure
the decisions she makes are appropriate. So, in effect, as long as she follows
the rules, it doesn't matter whether she gets the correct ruling based on the
evidence that exists or not.
BUT
Isn't there a line that one shouldn't cross
when it comes to blatantly showing favoritism in your court room? or is this
honestly just a case of her inner-self showing blind loyalty and not realizing
it?
~ukjaybrat - ianal[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
;-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
:-|
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
IANAL, but is it possible that she is rejecting on procedural ground to make
sure that Apple would not be able to bombard her (or the complain in the
appeals) that she did not follow the proper rejection procedure?
Also, if Apple got smack down on Oct 19's JMOL, wouldn't it be a more serious
blow than today? If Judge had granted Samsung's motion today, Apple would had
time to amend its next motion (Presumably its JMOL on Oct 19 as well)
By now you and I know that Apple's lawyer looks like clones of RIAA's and patent
trolls.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
"1 The Court will entertain only one post-judgment motion
for relief per side, not including Apple’s motion for
permanent injunction and willfulness enhancement.
Accordingly, any party who wishes to move for relief
pursuant to Rules 52(b), 59, or 60, shall incorporate such
motion(s) into its Rule 50 motion."
So why is she allowing Apple additional motion practice?
Why is this Koh, giving Apple the moon, the stars, the universe, and the
mulitveres, but Samsung a tiny little
cell. She is off her rocker here. I guess she is all in on
Apple, so she doesn't really care.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
Why is it up to Samsung to use its limited pages to point out to the judge that
Apples exceeded its page limits?
Shouldn't the judge enforce her own limits? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
While the judge may have her reasons for ruling as she has.
The appearance that she is ruling against Samsung for personal preferences is so
strong it has me as well as others
questioning if it is in fact happening. I think she is in a
bad position and seriously needs to look at what she is
doing. Her actions, while they may be right are going to
effect how people perceive they way justice is reached in a negative fashion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
But has the judge said how she views Apple's filing? After all, the 30 page
limit is her own rule. She can deny Samsung's motion and still cut off
everything after 30 pages in Apple's filing on her own account. I don't think we
know the answer to that yet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
It's a bit funny watching people who are assuming that she is blatantly allowing
Apple to violate her own rules. Isn't the real problem the fact that her rule
has no teeth? The punishment for including extra stuff was just to ignore the
extra stuff. That's all! Why assume that she has done something wrong (or
that she will get in trouble with the appeals court) before there is some
indication that she failed to ignore the extra stuff that she said she would
disregard?
Here is what she said (my emphasis):
The page
limits set forth herein will be strictly enforced. Any argument that is
not
explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits will be
disregarded. Any
supporting documentation shall be for corroboration
purposes solely and shall not
be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s
page limits. Any citations to
the record must include the relevant testimony or
exhibit language. I think it may be fair to criticize her for not
specifying a worse punishment, but she didn't. Now she should do what she said
she would do -- ignore any extra stuff.
BTW, just because Samsung said
the extra stuff was extra doesn't necessarily make it so. I suspect that they
were mostly correct, though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|