Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 09:28 PM EST |
I agree with you fully!
You last point esp. is the one anybody making the same analysis
will feel themselves urged to reach in conclusion.
What will happen?
Apple's response here I find extremely strong. In fact it's so strong,
it has the potential to save the Judge's face, who in hindsight will
have to admit to some slight(?) mismanagement of the voir dire.
After all, it's a fact that litigation went unmentioned that should
have been. (Judge was in a constant hurry, I seem to recall).
That would mean she herself would be a party with an interest in
the judgement of this, Apple's response, because the more this
response is found to be valid, the more that judgement shifts the
spotlight of the problem (out of which this dispute arises) to herself
and the mismanagement. That's a conflict, and she should be
aware of that.
The only way out would be, I think, (IANAL!) a mistrial.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 09:30 PM EST |
If Apple did not know then why go to all this bother. It strikes me that things
like this come up when there is something to cover up. "Why are you asking
if I took a dumpling when there is one missing?"
Tufty
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 08:57 AM EST |
I've noticed judges tend to avoid making the hard decisions by finding a way to
make them all moot. I'm guessing this judge will find a way to grant a new
trial based on something that we are not even noticing. Then she doesn't have
to decide the rest of the motions.
If she's angry with Apple or it's attorneys, she may grant Samsung's motion to
compel first and roast them over a fire.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 12:40 PM EST |
I enjoy the stylings of your words, there is a certain poetry
to them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|