|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
Keep in mind that she might be procedurally
right. Lawyers try for things, just on the
offchance that the judge is dozing that day.
So it could be that too. Remember that we
didn't follow this case as closely as the SCO
case, so it's harder to be certain. She may
have seen some things that we were not around
to notice.
And even when a judge may seem biased, to the
judge, that isn't how they see it. People rarely
know when they suffer from prejudices. In her
mind, she is being fair and right.
The appeals court will be the judge of that and in
fact it has already told her that she got one
big thing totally wrong), and
then maybe the US Supreme Court too. This journey
is sort of midway. There's discovery, then the trial,
then the post-trial motions, which is where we
are now, and then the appeals, which Samsung is
preparing for and doing sort of at the same time,
and as a result maybe a retrial.
So, it ain't over 'til it's over.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
I'm all a bit lost on Judge Koh's reasoning for lots of
things. If the justification is procedure, it's sort of
justified, but only to the extent that she is using it to
deny something she has already denied, on the pretext that a
new procedure is the justification. (whew)
I suppose we'll see what happens when Samsung and Apple
submit their JMOL motions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|