Judge loses temper, hits Apple counsel with 'smoking crack' remark - Page 2

Holy crap! Did some Googling and was surprised he's still alive.

 

No! No! and Double No!  Samscum's lawyers were planning on a defense to create confusion in the jury's minds with unrelated information, with the intent of making the jury unsure of what Samscum did or didn't copy or clone. Since the evidence in question was irrelevant to the trial, it was three times denied. Judge Koh is not allowing either side's lawyers play games with the jury's minds which really needs to be done more often in high-stakes trials.

@AppleInsider: You spelled "people" wrong in the first graph. xoxo

Not necessarily. Samsung has virtually no time left to cross-examine. Apple is just putting these witnesses one one after another after another for a few minutes to make a single point. They just might get all 22 in, or close enough that they can argue that the list was in good faith (avoiding sanctions). The jury is getting to hear nearly 2 dozen people make Apple's case and stew over it through the weekend before closing arguments early next week.

She's a former patent lawyer. Patent law is a very unique part of the law, and most people who go into it have a technical background. This isn't like closing a real estate deal, or even trying a criminal case.

Right, okay, why is this thing timed? Is there any legitimate reason?

The judge has the right to limit testimony to prevent filibustering.

However, if the limts are unreasonable, the case could be subject to appeal.

 

So instead of the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", it's "probably most of the truth, depending how fast you can talk and how quickly you can get people in the building" at the whims of a single person?

 

Not sure I like that.

The alternative is for the side with the most money to drag the trial out until they bankrupt the other side.

In addition, there's the problem of jury exhaustion. It is entirely plausible that a jury might better serve the interests of justice after 25 hours of testimony on each side rather than 1,000 hours of testimony that they will largely forget.

When properly applied, there's nothing wrong with it. There is, however, a question of whether Koh has been too heavy handed with her time limits - and the appeals court will have to decide that.

 

This is a pre-jury trial. This has all been about settling to avoid a jury trial.

 

Wait, so what was all that stuff about the jury selection process?

That's the funniest thing you have ever posted.

 

WRT the thread, I wish this judge was more Thurgood Marshall and less Judge Judy.  I don't imagine that her jurist colleagues

appreciate the unprofessional image she projects with her crack smoking crack.  When the litigants behave like children, she

should rise above rather than stooping to childishness.

Exactly.

 

Intellectual property rights are the least valuable types of things to take to trial, so 2 weeks or 20 weeks, doesn't matter. Both parties were given chances to settle, and they didn't take it. So the Judge is fully within her right to give a time limit to limit the "cruel and unusual punishment" to the Jury. Nobody in the world except the plaintiff is going to be inconvenienced while infringing products are on the market.

 

It's not like a criminal trial where someone caused the death of someone else and not letting all the evidence or witnesses in would change the outcome of the trial. In criminal law, loser either goes to jail or nothing happens and some lawyers get rich. In civil law, loser-pays, some employees get fired, and the lawyers get rich, no jailtime. 

 

Judge doesn't sanction Samsung over having an unregistered lawyer participate in the trial, despite a specific rule disallowing this for this case.

 

Obvious bias toward Samsung.

 

Yes, because queued up behind Apple and Samsung, there are others waiting for court time.

So what were the 10 jurors (7 men and 3 women) in this case selected for?

Regardless of that, many hours will be spent drafting an appeal regardless of the outcome. You can argue that it won't be granted, yet I think they'll find something.

I can't help but think that Apple shouldn't have hired Lionel Hutz, Attorney-at-Law, for this job...

 

Lionel Hutz: Now don't you worry, Mr. Cook, I... uh-oh. We've drawn Judge Koh.
Tim Cook: Is that bad?
Lionel Hutz: Well, she's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over her dog.
Tim Cook: You did?
Lionel Hutz:Well, replace the word "kinda" with the word "repeatedly," and the word "dog" with "son."
 

Thats right fandoids!

 

News: Judge denied the use of the Chewbacka defence!!!

 

Now wheep!
 

"Your honor, I am not smoking crack. I might be tired, drunk, fantasizing about you naked, and smoking crack. But I am definitely not drunk."

Really? Both sides agree that the potential damages are in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. How many other civil cases involve much greater value than that?

While your statement is correct (that the judge has the right to limit the trial time), your reasoning couldn't be more wrong.

That's a ridiculous statement. In a criminal case, no one else is inconvenience other than the victim, either. So I guess the case isn't important. Or, in a breach of contract case, no one is inconvenienced but the plaintiff, so it's not important. By its very nature, civil cases most often involve only two parties - so by your logic, all civil cases should be abolished.

Besides, your statement is incorrect, anyway. There's more at stake here than simply Apple and Samsung. What's at stake is the entire issue of how acceptable it is for a company to steal intellectual property from others without permission. If Apple loses this case, it will have severe impact on ANYONE who has intellectual property that they want to protect.

I would never argue that it won't be granted. I think it's quite likely that this one will hit the appeals court over at least some issues. The judge has made far too many questionable decisions for it to avoid an appeal. And I think it's likely the appeals court will accept the case over at least some of the issues.

I was simply stating that it was within the judge's right to limit testimony for several reasons.


Wrong.

This is a jury trial. The jury has now heard Samsung's case and most of Apple's case (Apple has a few hours left, but Samsung has used their time). If the two sides can't reach an agreement, the jury will decide.

The judge has encouraged them to settle to avoid a jury DECISION. The jury trial is already underway.

Another un-American judge deciding the fate of the greatest US company.

 

How can you say that, when the whole way people survive is by our brains. From the first guy who figured out how to light a fire or plant a crop, to the most recent guy who figured out a new type of computer, our intellect is the most valuable thing people have, and intellectual property is hella important. Physical things might be more important to an animal, but to a man intellectual things are equal to physical things.

As far as I know there is no particular standard or presiding body in most cases that would certify someone as an expert. Also, some experts are more expert that others - thus we have both sides presenting their own experts in the same fields with differing opinions.

 

The judge does not usually certify someone as an expert witness. (I have testified as an expert witness several times.) It is up to the attorney that is paying the tab for the expert witness to have the witness establish their expertise by stating education, practice in field, inventions, patents, years practiced, etc… The common counter move by opposing counsel is for their side to interrupt the expert and tell the judge/court that they recognize this witness as an expert in this particular area and acquiesce to same stealing the opportunity to impress the jury with all the stories of all the wonderful stuff this 'expert' has done and why they should be considered an expert. 

"What, are you on crack?"

That is not true. For someone to be accepted as an expert, the judge has to accept their credentials.

Apple staying true to their creative process even in the courtroom! Awesome.

It seems perfectly reasonable to want the flexibility of changing your mind which witness is called depending on how testimony progresses. One witness may only need 10 minutes, or depending on how Samsung delays a particular testimony Apple may want to jump to the bottom of their list. I'm a little surprised the judge would insist every single witness regardless of the length has to give testimony. If Apple called 15 out of 22 (more than 20mins. each), what's wrong with that? If however, they only call half then that's obviously an abuse.

Keep in mind that Samsung has used up essentially all of their time. Apple can therefore get through the witnesses more quickly since they have to spend less time establishing foundation and background.

 

UnAmerican in the way she's acting in this situation, or unAmerican for a different reason?

Lucy Koh was born in the US, raised in the US, educated in the US. How un-American indeed. Racists like you should not show your face here anymore. Bye.

[In reply to first-time poster mandybrigwell]

 

 

Welcome to AppleInsider with a "cracking good" first post.   Seriously,

this place can use some linguistic sophistication -- I may be dating myself,

but I haven't heard the expletive "interrobang" in ages, so thank you

for that !?!

 

That said, I'll add some value here to the reportage for wannabe trial onlookers,

because I've been present in that San Jose courtroom "trial of the century" venue.

 

Judge Koh has not been getting proper credit for putting up with these

high-powered attorneys-at-law.   There is a lot of testosterone in that

boiler room of a court -- they are going at it "tooth-and-nail", and it is

worth it just for the entertainment value.

 

Okay, so I mainly appreciated the day when the very soft-spoken Dr. Susan Kare

testified about the general "gestalt" of the two parties "look and feel".

Even though she had to admit under oath that she was pulling in $550 per hour

(from Apple) for her expertise, her considered opinion as an icon designer

meant much.   Actually, this is a pittance compared to Prof. Andries van Dam's

$1000 per hour, so methinks there is still male/female remuneration disparity...

 

Sorry for the name dropping here, but Dr. Kare at I traded quips at the elevator

about things like her designer watch -- not an Apple iPod watch, but something else,

perfectly reflective of "trade dress" confusion which is at the core of the trial.

(Aside: Neither here nor there except for me being an admitted Apple sycophant

[read "fanboy"], I briefly related, there not being much time in an elevator,

about Steve Jobs' "attack interview" with me at NeXT.)

 

At any rate, although Judge Koh may not be a "silverback gorilla" like Judge Alsup

I witnessed at Apple v. Psystar, or Judge Vaughn Walker at the key

Apple v. Microsoft copyright trial many moons ago, she is putting up with much

BS from the not-disinterested parties who are spending megamillions on this sideshow.

 

--retiarius

You know it's bad when a government employee is complaining about corporate bureaucracy.

I wasn't really questioning whether she could limit testimony. I was saying that even though an appeals case requires some kind of merit, we are talking about two companies who can afford a lot of legal resources looking through court transcripts for something to argue if they determine it to be worthwhile.

There is absolutely a standard.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

 

(In a small nutshell) The witness must demonstrate that they have the necessary qualifications to present their opinion, including having education/training and practical experience in the area and the opinion must be based in accepted practice.

 

If the judge doesn't believe the witness meets the qualifications then they are not an "expert" and their testimony has no relevance.  It is usually up to the party opposing the witness to raise issues of lack of qualification.

they would never smoke crack in Cupertino but they do have some kush that would rock your sh*t, that patent where they "pour" information from one device to another still boggles my mind..
 

God Bless America. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. This is the beacon of egalitarianism. A judge willing to tear idiot lawyers of global behemoths a new one, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation nor creed. Hang on to this.