or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge shuts down Apple motion regarding Samsung's 'misleading' opening statements
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge shuts down Apple motion regarding Samsung's 'misleading' opening statements

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Just hours after Apple filed a motion asking to show evidence of alleged misleading and false statements delivered by Samsung counsel in the companies' second California patent trial, a district court judge late Thursday largely denied the request in a way that could narrow Apple's case moving forward.

Galaxy Nexus


California District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's motion for curative action relating to statements made by Samsung counsel during the Apple v. Samsung trial's opening proceedings.

At question were comments made by Samsung that alleged Apple does not practice certain patent claims in its products, which would by strict definition make the company a non-practicing entity. As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple stipulated in a pretrial document that it does not practice certain claims from the asserted '959, '414 and '172 patents.

According to Apple's motion (embedded below), Samsung described the situation to jurors by saying, "Apple admits that three of the five patent claims that it is suing on were not in that iPhone and have never been in any iPhone since. Apple doesn't consider it valuable enough to even use."

In its motion, Apple noted several instances where Samsung counsel made "irrelevant, misleading and even untrue statements" and asked for curative instructions relating to these statements. Judge Koh denied the motion in part and requested supplemental briefs from both parties as to whether Apple practiced certain claims in each of the three patents.

In a pre-trial order, Judge Koh said, "Apple may present the invention story of [the '414, '172, and '959] patents, but may not contend that it practices the patents. Apple may not rebut any Samsung contention that Apple products constitute an acceptable non-infringing alternative to the '414, '172, or '959 Patents by contending that Apple practices an unasserted or asserted claim of the '414, '172, or '959 Patents."

Mueller points out Judge Koh's decision has roots in the trial's case management order that limited Apple and Samsung to five patent claims each. During case narrowing, Apple took the opportunity to drop non-duplicative claims in a more offensive approach that arguably brought the case to trial more quickly.

Apple could have fought to keep the non-duplicative claims as part of its arsenal, as per a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling in 2011 saying a court may narrow a plaintiff's claims only if they are duplicative. Mueller believes Judge Koh may have been to strict in her ruling and made the decision at least in part with case narrowing in mind.

While Apple may later make a statement regarding the patents in question, the Thursday order will be restrictive to claims already asserted against Samsung.

post #2 of 39
What is Judge Koh's deal. Cut down the patents you want to prove Samsung stole cause this is taking too long. How the hell is that justice?

It is clear anytime you litigate anything your "day in court" is gonna be years and a judge's idea of the right to a quick and speedy trial is far different than my idea of quick. This is a freaking turtle race where they race but then Samsung wants best 2 out of three. By the time this is over the damn turtle is gonna be dead (and there are some specifies that live for a century .
post #3 of 39
This should shut up those who think Apple gets preferential treatment by the courts since it's an American company against a Korean company in an American court. It won't shut them up, but it should...
post #4 of 39
I thought that was the point.
Talk bull and when its called bull claim how fair the system is.

And its always been about Google, Samsung just stated the complete obvious there.
One thing I blame Samsung for is going via Jury. Apple have spent years training mindsets, they got a decision was obvious to anyone that has followed the complete marketing phenonima that Apple has always been.
post #5 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

What is Judge Koh's deal. Cut down the patents you want to prove Samsung stole cause this is taking too long. How the hell is that justice?

It is clear anytime you litigate anything your "day in court" is gonna be years and a judge's idea of the right to a quick and speedy trial is far different than my idea of quick. This is a freaking turtle race where they race but then Samsung wants best 2 out of three. By the time this is over the damn turtle is gonna be dead (and there are some specifies that live for a century .

The speedy trial part of the 6th amendment is for criminal cases not civil. It is also about how long of a delay until trial is started after arrest or indictment of the accused, not the length of the trial itself.
post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonMG View Post

This should shut up those who think Apple gets preferential treatment by the courts since it's an American company against a Korean company in an American court. It won't shut them up, but it should...

 

This won’t shut anybody up. These types don’t argue logically. They merely spout their hate of Apple using any twisted logic that can come up with. You can’t silence these people. You can’t embarrass them. You can’t shame them. And you certainly can’t get them banned on AI. All you can do is block them so you don’t have to read their drivel. 

post #7 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonMG View Post

This should shut up those who think Apple gets preferential treatment by the courts since it's an American company against a Korean company in an American court. It won't shut them up, but it should...

She has ruled both ways. Some of them have been overturned, but no matter what she does, someone will claim she is biased. The reason this genuinely annoys me is that the people who do so often don't seem to read more than a headline. There are frequent technical mistakes. What you can do is just ignore it.

post #8 of 39

She's tired of the BS, and patent trolling on both sides

post #9 of 39
Her ruling that Samsung can make these statements is meaningless. Apple can easily prove infringement. It is not necessary that the patent holder actually use every patent they hold. That's idiotic. An issued patent is an enforceable patent, unless deemed invalid for some other reason. Samsung is flailing.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #10 of 39
The heated rivalry on the issues has a lot to do with assessment of damages at the end of trial, I guess.
post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Her ruling that Samsung can make these statements is meaningless. Apple can easily prove infringement. It is not necessary that the patent holder actually use every patent they hold. That's idiotic. An issued patent is an enforceable patent, unless deemed invalid for some other reason. Samsung is flailing.

I'm guessing they're just trying to implant the idea in order to lower the damages if they are found guilty. Since Apple is asking $40 a device, if they can make jurors think the patents aren't as useful, they may get that value lowered.
post #12 of 39
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
a district court judge

 

This generic statement humanizes her in ways she doesn’t deserve.

 
California District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's motion for curative action relating to statements made by Samsung counsel during the Apple v. Samsung trial's opening proceedings.
 

 

“Your honor, they’re lying, and we can prove it.”

“Nah.”

“Thank you, so exhibit… wait, what?”

“Nah, I don’t think so.”

“You don’t think we can prove it, don’t think they’re lying, or…?”

“I don’t think I’ll let you prove it.”

“… So…”

“So we’re moving on with the trial.”
“The trial in which we are explicitly set to prove (again) that Samsung is lying, you mean.”

“That’s the one!”

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

I'm guessing they're just trying to implant the idea in order to lower the damages if they are found guilty. Since Apple is asking $40 a device, if they can make jurors think the patents aren't as useful, they may get that value lowered.
Correct. The idea is that "since Apple themselves find so little value in those particular claims that they don't even use them for their own iPhones" (a fact Apple agreed with) they hope the jury comes to the conclusion they can't possibly be worth the $40 per device from Samsung that Apple wants.

EDIT: Even tho Apple agrees with the court and Samsung that they don't practice those claims themselves they now want to say they used to make use of a really similar claim to one of them in the first iPhone. As I read it another of the claims might have been used in an internal test version of the OS, and yet another might have been in an Asian keyboard used on an old iPhone. IMO it wouldn't make the patent claims look any more (or less) valuable to me but I'm not on the jury.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/4/14 at 9:34am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 39

I wish this trial was on TV. I'm sick of seeing murders and rapists.. This would actually get my attention. 

post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

What is Judge Koh's deal. Cut down the patents you want to prove Samsung stole cause this is taking too long. How the hell is that justice?

It is clear anytime you litigate anything your "day in court" is gonna be years and a judge's idea of the right to a quick and speedy trial is far different than my idea of quick. This is a freaking turtle race where they race but then Samsung wants best 2 out of three. By the time this is over the damn turtle is gonna be dead (and there are some specifies that live for a century .


She is right.  The most important thing is whether Samsung stole/infringe Apple patents.  How many patents are stolen/infringed is important in determining the damages/penalties. 


Edited by tzeshan - 4/4/14 at 10:09am
post #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Correct. The idea is that "since Apple themselves find so little value in those particular claims that they don't even use them for their own iPhones" (a fact Apple agreed with) they hope the jury comes to the conclusion they can't possibly be worth the $40 per device from Samsung that Apple wants.

I agree that that's what appears to be happening, but it should be an easy point for Apple to address when they make their own case.  If a car company invented some clever new anti-lock brake technology and a competitor started using it, it doesn't really matter if the inventing company uses it.  If it wasn't valuable why did the competitor include it in their design?  If it wasn't valuable, why didn't they remove it as soon as someone alleged infringement?  Frankly, I have no idea how one could put a value on most of these software patents.  For example, if Apple had used some other approach to unlocking a phone, what would that have cost them in terms of sales?  Depends on how crappy or elegant the alternative was, right?  Or even more complicated "how much revenue did Apple lose because Samsung sold products with these particular infringing element?"  Presumably the jury implicitly comes up with a number that is really "how much pain should Samsung be given for doing this" and they call that whatever it is the judge is actually asking for.  I don't see how they have any other alternative.

post #17 of 39

As it has already been presented, Samsung tone on this is they already admitted defeat since they can not show any independent development or thought process on how they arrived at their design, their own internal documents point to the analysis the competitor and copy it. They are just trying to devalue the patents at this point, so when they loose it not a big hit to the pocket book. Also keep in mind they will also appeal the decision so they can continue delaying any payment they will have to make.

post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

As it has already been presented, Samsung tone on this is they already admitted defeat since they can not show any independent development or thought process on how they arrived at their design, their own internal documents point to the analysis the competitor and copy it. They are just trying to devalue the patents at this point, so when they loose it not a big hit to the pocket book. Also keep in mind they will also appeal the decision so they can continue delaying any payment they will have to make.


The payment amount is less important to Apple.  Apple can achieve a big victory by demanding Samsung from removing these things. 

post #19 of 39

So Apple, IBM, Microsoft and others formed their own advocacy group regarding patents (specifically software patents).

 

One of the jurors is a former IBM software systems manager.

 

How long after the guilty verdict can we expect Samsung to declare a mistrial over this jury member? After they let Hogan stay (even though they had a chance to question him during "voir dire", I'm expecting the same behavior this time around.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

So Apple, IBM, Microsoft and others formed their own advocacy group regarding patents (specifically software patents).

 

One of the jurors is a former IBM software systems manager.

 

How long after the guilty verdict can we expect Samsung to declare a mistrial over this jury member? After they let Hogan stay (even though they had a chance to question him during "voir dire", I'm expecting the same behavior this time around.

Maybe Samsung is hoping that this IBMer knows about the long history of distributed databases, which is the crux of the Unified Search patent that's being asserted against them. He has probably the most technically oriented background of all the jurors, and Samsung would probably want as many jurors with software engineering experience as possible in a trial regarding software patents.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/4/14 at 12:38pm
post #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Maybe Samsung is hoping that this IBMer knows about the long history of distributed databases, which is the crux of the Unified Search patent that's being asserted against them. He has probably the most technically oriented background of all the jurors, and Samsung would probably want as many jurors with software engineering experience as possible in a trial regarding software patents.
No they don't. They want simple people easily swayed. People who understand patents would get the true depth of Samsung's IP theft.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #22 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


No they don't. They want simple people easily swayed. People who understand patents would get the true depth of Samsung's IP theft.

They've had a fair bit of success in Europe fighting the slide-to-unlock patent, even in Germany where they were judged by people with science and engineering backgrounds (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/10-european-judges-found-apple-had-not.html). Software engineers are probably more likely to oppose software patents - not patents in general - compared to the layman since they are the ones who would have to look over their shoulder every time they sort a list in a particular way or write a user interface. Joel Spolsky (cofounder of StackOverflow) was a former Microsofter (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html), and here's what he had to say:

 

"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry thatmaybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.

 

The other 40,000-odd software patents issued every year are mostly garbage that any working programmer could “invent” three times before breakfast. Most issued software patents aren’t “inventions” as most people understand that word. They’re just things that any first-year student learning Java should be able to do as a homework assignment in two hours." 

(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html)


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/4/14 at 2:49pm
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

They've had a fair bit of success in Europe fighting the slide-to-unlock patent, even in Germany where they were judged by people with science and engineering backgrounds (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/10-european-judges-found-apple-had-not.html). Software engineers are probably more likely to oppose software patents - not patents in general - compared to the layman since they are the ones who would have to look over their shoulder every time they sort a list in a particular way or write a user interface. Joel Spolsky (cofounder of StackOverflow) was a former Microsofter (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html), and here's what he had to say:

 

"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry thatmaybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.

 

The other 40,000-odd software patents issued every year are mostly garbage that any working programmer could “invent” three times before breakfast. Most issued software patents aren’t “inventions” as most people understand that word. They’re just things that any first-year student learning Java should be able to do as a homework assignment in two hours." 

(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html)

 

So wait a second. He's claiming patents are written to make them hard to discover by other companies, yet he successfully finds prior art on a Microsoft patent in 10 minutes? So what's he complaining about then, if he was able to find prior art on a patent so easily?

 

Software engineers are more likely to oppose software patents? Bull. I'm a software engineer and most of the people I work with are in favor of patents. There are a few people I know against them, but they are also open source freaks who think software should be free for all, and we should all live in lily fields with butterflies and unicorns.

 

The Neonode was brought up by Apple in the documents for their slide to unlock patent. You want to know why? Because the Neonode system is significantly different from Apple's. Apple knew all about the Neonode before all the internet slueths "discovered" it and thought they found the holy grail against Apple. The Neonode used a swipe along the lower edge of the phone to indicate either "Yes or No", "Accept or Cancel", "Place Call/End Call" or other similar actions. If you take this in context with how the Neonode works and how they used gestures you'd see they had a very rudimentary system. They took a few basic concepts from regular PC software (where you often have a dialog box with "OK Cancel" on it) and turn those binary decisions into a pair of gestures. Swipe right for yes, swipe left for no.

 

If you picked up a Neonode for the first time and tried to use it, you'd have no way of knowing you needed to swipe to unlock the phone (or for that matter, swipe to perform any actions). Only by reading the manual would you know this. In contract, as soon as you pick up an iPhone you're presented with the text of what the gesture means, and an image you can touch that moves (slides) with you. You instantly know how to unlock the phone. If you get a phone call you also know how to answer it. In other words, Apple's system is intuitive while Neonodes isn't. They both might involve a simple gesture, but that's all they have in common.

 

And according to the USPTO, you can patent something that improves upon an existing idea. I would think adding a moving graphical image that follows a path (with added text and highlighted graphics) to be a significant improvement over the Neonode.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

So wait a second. He's claiming patents are written to make them hard to discover by other companies, yet he successfully finds prior art on a Microsoft patent in 10 minutes? So what's he complaining about then, if he was able to find prior art on a patent so easily?
There is no contradiction. He found prior art on a patent that was already in front of him. His point is that because the language of software patents tends to be obfuscated, it's hard to find the appropriate patent to challenge in the first place if you're trying to find out whether an idea that might seem basic to you is actually forbidden by some patent.  Even if you manage to locate some patents that might be relevant, there's also the question of how to interpret the legalese. For example, is a tap a "zero-length swipe" that is covered under a patent for swipe gestures? Posner threw that case out, but it took Motorola months of litigation and thousands of dollars in legal fees before they could be sure that they were safe. It's clear that the interpretation of a software patent is far from clear. 

This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that independent discovery is essentially unavoidable in software engineering. All programmers learn to solve problems using the same tools. In fact many programmers today probably studied algorithms using the same textbook (CLRS). Therefore it's almost inevitable that some programmers working on the same problem will independently arrive at similar solutions.
Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/4/14 at 6:41pm
post #25 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Software engineers are more likely to oppose software patents? Bull. I'm a software engineer and most of the people I work with are in favor of patents. There are a few people I know against them, but they are also open source freaks who think software should be free for all, and we should all live in lily fields with butterflies and unicorns..

Programmers have overwhelmingly had a historical opposition to software patents according to sources and surveys I've found. I can't find evidence showing the attitude has changed, other than you happen to know some guys who agree with you.
http://www.progfree.org/Whatsnew/survey.html
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/06/whats-wrong-wit.html

Legal and economic scholars believe software patents should be abolished.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=24020

Most software entrepreneurs don't see enough value in software patents to bother with them.
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/07/excellent-summary-of-berkeley-patent-survey-results.html

Even companies like Oracle who have asserted them against other techs say they oppose the patentability of software.
http://www.ibiblio.org/patents/txt/020294.txt

It's not just a few open-source freaks who firmly believe software should not be patentable. IMHO Bill Gates had it nailed 20 years ago:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today,” Gates wrote in a 1991 internal memo. Microsoft was still relatively small, and Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing,” which could give the company “a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.”
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/5/14 at 4:28am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

I wish this trial was on TV. I'm sick of seeing murders and rapists.. This would actually get my attention. 

I wished this during the first trial. I would have a blast watching this play out. Seeing how each side reacts to what is being said and the attitudes, I imagine it would be amusing to say the least.
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post
 

She's tired of the BS, and patent trolling on both sides

Trolls never tire of trolling, as you prove.

“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Programmers have overwhelmingly had a historical opposition to software patents according to sources and surveys I've found. I can't find evidence showing the attitude has changed, other than you happen to know some guys who agree with you.
http://www.progfree.org/Whatsnew/survey.html
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/06/whats-wrong-wit.html

Legal and economic scholars believe software patents should be abolished.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=24020

Most software entrepreneurs don't see enough value in software patents to bother with them.
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/07/excellent-summary-of-berkeley-patent-survey-results.html

Even companies like Oracle who have asserted them against other techs say they oppose the patentability of software.
http://www.ibiblio.org/patents/txt/020294.txt

It's not just a few open-source freaks who firmly believe software should not be patentable. IMHO Bill Gates had it nailed 20 years ago:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today,” Gates wrote in a 1991 internal memo. Microsoft was still relatively small, and Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing,” which could give the company “a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.”

If you dig your hole far enough, you'll reach hell.

“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

If you dig your hole far enough, you'll reach hell.

That seems like a nonsensical reply having nothing to do with the post. 1bugeye.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


The payment amount is less important to Apple.  Apple can achieve a big victory by demanding Samsung from removing these things. 

 

Most of the items which are being decided upon have been removed from the design which make Apple possible stronger. at this point it is bragging rights and money.

post #31 of 39

Today "Judge Koh (rejected a) request to keep Google source code secret in trial because central to Samsung (arguments)."

 

This is a huge blow for Google.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25496780/live-blog-day-3-testimony-apple-samsung-patent

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #32 of 39
Ouch for Google.
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

Ouch for Google.
I would imagine it's nothing new to Apple. It's not the first time their source code has been given as evidence in a trial.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

Ouch for Google.
I would imagine it's nothing new to Apple. It's not the first time their source code has been given as evidence in a trial.
no but I'm sure Google would prefer no one seeing it. Though I'm sure it will be seen with an army of Google lawyers hovering around like vultures on a corpse
post #35 of 39
Today is "Hired Gun" day in the Apple/Samsung trial. Dueling $400/hr+ "expert" guys arguing the patent value or lack of it on behalf of their clients.

EDIT: No dueling today, only Apple's hired experts testified. $350K paid to one of them so far while the other has received a paltry $200K to date. 1eek.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/7/14 at 4:27pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

no but I'm sure Google would prefer no one seeing it. Though I'm sure it will be seen with an army of Google lawyers hovering around like vultures on a corpse

You can go see it for yourself if you like. It's not inaccessible.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Today is "Hired Gun" day in the Apple/Samsung trial. Dueling $400/hr+ "expert" guys arguing the patent value or lack of it on behalf of their clients.

EDIT: No dueling today, only Apple's hired experts testified. $350K paid to one of them so far while the other has received a paltry $200K to date. 1eek.gif

It's not about the cost, it's about the relative value they provide in terms of winning the trial.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's not about the cost, it's about the relative value they provide in terms of winning the trial.

Or as Big Worm said in the movie Friday "it's the principalities" lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's not about the cost, it's about the relative value they provide in terms of winning the trial.

In the only trial with "expert witnesses" where I served on the jury we didn't really give much weight to the hired guns. It seems like in the last Samsung/Apple trial they didn't either.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge shuts down Apple motion regarding Samsung's 'misleading' opening statements