|
Authored by: Kevin on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:16 AM EST |
It's the way that just about all court proceedings work. One party asks the
court for something (Motion). The opponent puts up his best arguments against it
(Response). The original proponent gets to answer the arguments (Reply). Once
all three pieces of paperwork are in, there may or may not be oral arguments.
Those follow the same general form: direct - response - rebuttal. The chief
purpose for oral arguments is so that the judge can ask questions.
In this instance, what Judge Koh is saying is that she'll allow oral argument
without first having Samsung file its reply brief. That's most likely a good
sign for Samsung. If she isn't allowing Samsung to answer Apple's written
arguments, that would be manifestly unfair to Samsung - and an issue for appeal.
My guess is that she's planning to tell Apple, "you don't have to answer,
but I shall construe a failure to answer as admitting to Samsung's
argument."
Or else she's planning to dismiss this entire line of inquiry and say that it
isn't her business to second-guess a jury and the motions to that effect from
both sides are all dismissed.
---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:18 AM EST |
Her other cases could literally have people's lives hanging on them.
Compared to that "One Trillion Dollars" isn't much more than a song.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:04 AM EST |
Probably not that big.
The problem is the volume. I get the impression :-) that as Judges fall off the
bench they are not being replaced. So there are probably fewer Judges than there
are supposed to be. Add in the American penchant for litigation, there are
probably more lawsuits than are provisioned for, even with a full complement of
Judges.
So Koh is probably doing a workload that should have two Judges provisioned for
it ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 11:12 AM EST |
After a claim, response, and counter-response all the basic facts should be
settled, but there might be some contentious point that will require dozens (I'm
not exaggerating here) of exchanges to sort out, which is why they move to oral
arguments, where the judge can rapid-fire ask questions, get immediate
responses, and then ask for further clarification.
The same kind of thing happens in engineering, you trade emails for a bit, but
if at a certain point there are issues that just aren't settling out, you have a
chat, voice, or in-person meeting to hash it out.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|