|
Authored by: kuroshima on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 03:11 PM EST |
As they say in my corner of the net, Boies got owned...
I say that Groklaw should be required reading for judges![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Ouch - Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 08:02 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 03:35 PM EST |
And they work so hard to filter out anyone on the jury who
might have the faintest idea what the case is actually about
- worked out fine in Apple v Samsung didn't it.
So in patent trials that have to go to a jury is it
essential that the members of the jury should no way be
'skilled in the art'.
These days I do ask people who I know have NO qualifications
in anything how to do X because I know they will have the
answer. Programming is so easy to pick up - if you have the
will and need to do so. It has been deliberately made as
easy as sticking bits of Lego together.
Take grep. What would the patent for that be then. A method
to identify a pattern of symbols in a plurality of inputs.
Or some such rubbish.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Ouch - Authored by: capt.Hij on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 03:53 PM EST
- grep - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 03:54 PM EST
|
Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 03:52 PM EST |
It might be a bit of a stretch to call the judge an expert. As he points
out, RangeCheck is the sort of thing that a high-school student could
probably write in five minutes. It hardly needs an expert.
It's one
thing to present an argument that only an expert is likely to see
through. It's another to present an argument that even an amateur with
a moderate interest in the topic is going to be able to see through. That's
where Boies really slipped up! :)
--- Do not meddle in the
affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 05:30 PM EST |
But just to play a bit of devil's advocate ...
The judge is doing the same
thing that he advises jurors not to do ... introducing his own testimony from
personal experience to the mix. The fact that he's right doesn't change
what he's doing. The fact that he's right does make it appear a lot more
sensible option than if he were spouting off incorrectly on something. But if
(we discovered that) a juror had made this same statement ("they made a big deal
about it but I could do it in less than five minutes so they're just puffing up
its importance") I think we'd be looking at a situation a little greyer than but
still similar to our jury foreman. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 07:28 AM EST |
>>Having a judge who is expert in the field can really ruin a
lawyer's day
Judge to Lawyer: I do know enough about the difference
between an ass and a hole in the ground to know that you are
not a hole in the ground.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 09:25 AM EST |
The Judge was only about equivilent to a highschooler in the field (or only
needed to show that much, anyway).
The fact that that's all that's needed just makes the point even clearer.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|