|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 02:59 PM EST |
I don't agree on whose part the misunderstanding lies. Judge Koh
let this case drift into a sea of misunderstanding (see posts above
Koh vs. Alsup). eg. after painfully identifying exactly which three
models were NOT sold in the US,
---
MR. ZELLER: And then the third one is the Galaxy S II i9100.
THE COURT: And that's Roman Numeral II?
MR. ZELLER: Yeah, small -- it's Galaxy S II, Roman Numeral II, then a small
i9100.
THE COURT: Okay. So the -- it's small -- it's lower case Roman Numeral I.
MR. ZELLER: Correct.
THE COURT: Two of them, and then i9100?
MR. ZELLER: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
---
take a look at the Judge's notes and see if she hasn't written
Galaxy S ii
OK that's a nitpick, but the courts are supposed to be about getting these
things right. And regardless of what FRCP allows Judge Koh has
"I never have briefing on Rule 50, never. Never, ever.
I've never had briefing on Rule 50 before."
so they couldn't give it to her in writing to avoid misunderstanding.
Then they have to settle which of three Samsung companies is
responsible for these three models. The Rule 50 motion is denied
for the non-US company for devices not sold in the US.
Now its my turn to not understand.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 04:07 PM EST |
A misunderstanding on the lawyer's part? It doesn't seem so from the transcript
that is here. The judge keeps saying that she disagrees that actual deception
of consumers is required, even though he is not saying that it is. This looks
like the prior episode that was reported on where she kept saying that another
Samsung lawyer was arguing something he wasn't.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|