My criticism of Samsung's lawyers - not Samsung - is that they filed a
document containing a potentially contentious statement with a citation broken
in two ways.
Firstly it cited a document filed in error and withdrawn,
secondly the corresponding paragraph in the corrected document did not back up
the contentious statement.
I did - and still do - consider that to be sloppy
lawyering. Absolutely no criticism of Samsung.
I fully admit that in my
original post I used the term Samsung for Samsung's lawyers - just like you did
in your earlier post. I assumed the context would make it clear. Samsung, the
company, does not itself file documents with the court.
I will try to make my
concern clear one last time: I am quite happy for people to think I am biased
towards Samsung and against Apple. Because at the moment it's true, it's not
illegal and I'm not a juror. If, however, someone asserts that I am being paid
to support Samsung then I would demand evidence.
Moving back two steps: if
you were to tell the world there are press reports speculating that I may have a
direct financial relationship with Samsung should I not expect you to be able to
produce those press reports?
My concern was that not only was I unable to
find the reports referred to by Samsung's Lawyers using the citation
in their
filing, but - because I was searching on the wrong keywords - I was unable to
find anything independently to support their statement.
The motive for my
original post was because I believed that - with just the information given -
Apple's lawyers could easily devalue Samsung's lawyers' argument and I was
hoping someone else could help locate something to support it. If you look in
the thread above you can see that PJ supplied the necessary and I think I have
made my peace with her. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|