It IS unusual. Monetary sanctions against counsel is definitely unusual.
That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Keep at 'em Apple.
"The next such motion, and I shall forbid (Apple) to file any motions without first moving for leave to file," the judge added in his decision.
It isn't the lawsuits he's objecting to as such, but rather, Apple's last-minute maneuverings. Some of them might be unorthodox.
And the judge is likely to get himself slapped down by the appeals court if Apple chooses to appeal. They have the legal right to file anything they wish. A court can not take away that right simply because the judge is lazy and doesn't want to deal with all the patents that are involved.
That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.
You must be multi-tasking and doing a poor job of it. Listening to Gatorguy rather than Jragosta today might be the better advice. Tomorrows another day, and maybe you'll be back to form by then.
I'm betting you won't admit you were wrong anyway. Let's see...
For those of us who don't spend much time following the details of litigation, it would be interesting to know whether this kind of exchange is unusual, or typical for cases like this.
There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.
That's news to me. I wonder why AI didn't report it?
Not really. It was a technicality and happens sometimes.
Yes really. It's very unusual for seasoned attorneys to get court sanctions, not to mention embarrassing for the attorneys involved. You must be bored to continually call others wrong all day just to disagree..
Not only that, but the sanctions were for lying to the court in the opening statement and in a pretrial brief. Pretty nasty stuff.
I originally mentioned it a few days back. Perhaps as one poster here said, Apple getting a court sanction wasn't unusual anyway, so nothing new and worthy of reporting.
You must be multi-tasking and doing a poor job of it. Listening to Gatorguy rather than Jragosta today might be the better advice. Tomorrows another day, and maybe you'll be back to form by then.
I'm betting you won't admit you were wrong anyway. Let's see...
Yes, I'm aware that it's too much for you to read past the headlines. If you actually read the article, it says:
"Thus, ALJ Pender ordered Apple to reimburse MMI for the effort and reasonable costs spent in responding to Apple’s erroneous position and in responding to Order No. 32."
Of course, no one expects you to admit that you're wrong because virtually every post you make is wrong.
Yes, I'm aware that it's too much for you to read past the headlines. If you actually read the article, it says:
"Thus, ALJ Pender ordered Apple to reimburse MMI for the effort and reasonable costs spent in responding to Apple’s erroneous position and in responding to Order No. 32."
Of course, no one expects you to admit that you're wrong because virtually every post you make is wrong.
So Jragosta, did the judge order sanctions against Apple as I wrote, or didn't order any as you claimed (writing "That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions.")
Only one of us can be right. I already know the answer.
Just curious if you can admit when you're wrong.
FWIW I had posted news several days ago that Apple was ordered to pay Moto's added legal fees that resulted from the dishonesty of their counsel. You're not telling me anything I didn't know long before you took notice this had happened.
It's no wonder that Tim Cook dislikes using litigation; Apple is spending loads of money on lawyers and getting precious little in return.
Well, if he dislikes it so much, I bet he could make it stop. This and the guy suing for a logic board replacement, where NVIDIA would have paid for the replacement but, instead, Apple is sending barristers to court means the legal team's culture is off.
I don't like post-Jobs Apple so much, and everything I hear makes me like it slightly less. (Though if I get a high-res (greater than 1080p) MacBook monitor in the refresh, much will be forgiven.)
So Jragosta, did the judge order sanctions against Apple as I wrote, or didn't order any as you claimed (writing "That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions.")
Only one of us can be right. I already know the answer.
Just curious if you can admit when you're wrong.
FWIW I had posted news several days ago that Apple was ordered to pay Moto's added legal fees that resulted from the dishonesty of their counsel. You're not telling me anything I didn't know long before you took notice this had happened.
You said that it was very unusual and indicated egregious behavior on Apple's part. In reality, having one party ordered to pay the other's legal fees is not the least bit unusual.
And the most common use of 'sanctions' is a fine that the party pays to the court - which didn't happen in this case.
That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.
And the judge is likely to get himself slapped down by the appeals court if Apple chooses to appeal. They have the legal right to file anything they wish. A court can not take away that right simply because the judge is lazy and doesn't want to deal with all the patents that are involved.
It sounds like you are confusing attorney’s fees, which can be a remedy for the ultimate cause of action, with sanctions. The former does happen often enough. But being penalized for filing a frivolous motion, and being ordered to pay the adversary’s costs in opposing that specific motion, is much rarer. The linked article expressly identifies it as a sanction under 19 C.F.R. § 210.4, so that should eliminate your confusion.
And the judge very much so has the authority to control his docket and order what the parties may file and when. I’m not sure where you have gotten your information.
To correct an error in the story, Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is just sitting by designation on the district court.
It sounds like you are confusing attorney’s fees, which can be a remedy for the ultimate cause of action, with sanctions. The former does happen often enough. But being penalized for filing a frivolous motion, and being ordered to pay the adversary’s costs in opposing that specific motion, is much rarer. The linked article expressly identifies it as a sanction under 19 C.F.R. § 210.4, so that should eliminate your confusion.
And the judge very much so has the authority to control his docket and order what the parties may file and when. I’m not sure where you have gotten your information.
To correct an error in the story, Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is just sitting by designation on the district court.
Thank you sir for your input. JrAgosta still won't admit he was wrong however, so expect him to tell you that you have no idea what you're "talkin'" about any more than the Judge's in the two cases.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was hanging a ceiling fan.
EDIT: Being a bit more serious, while you might think that's a lot of posts I'm not even in the top 10 for the past week. The top 3 are TS (a mod, so expected), Jragosta and Z.
every case has crap like this but hey he can name drop Apple and get some fame.
He doesn't seem to be tired of Moto's FRAND abuse, or Samsung's.
I wonder when he declares against Apple in one of these cases how fast they will appeal on the grounds that they weren't allowed to file a motion because the judge was in a cranky mood and didn't want to be bothered with it. Probably get the appeal if it happens and they do use that reason. Which is why I think this guy is basically blowing smoke
There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.
The ITC is not a court, it's an admin board and on more than one occasion their sanctions have been overturned in appeals or in the actual trial.
And it's probably not that unusual of an occurrence.
This and the guy suing for a logic board replacement, where NVIDIA would have paid for the replacement
Therein lies the issue. The facts. As in you don't have them straight and neither do some of the posters. the ITC thing was not a COURT sanction because the ITC isn't a court. And the guy with the NVIDIA issue was refused that replacement unless he agreed to other non covered repairs that were to items that rendered his computer unusable. He didn't want to pay the $500 or whatever for the other problem so he went to small claims to force the issue over replacing the board which put Apple in a position to just give him a whole new computer to shut him up even though he didn't deserve one.
and so on. And for the record, all of this started very much in the Jobs era so don't go blaming Tim Cook for any of it. If anything he's trying to end it quickly by agreeing to things like the Samsung mediation talks.
every case has crap like this but hey he can name drop Apple and get some fame.
He doesn't seem to be tired of Moto's FRAND abuse, or Samsung's.
I wonder when he declares against Apple in one of these cases how fast they will appeal on the grounds that they weren't allowed to file a motion because the judge was in a cranky mood and didn't want to be bothered with it. Probably get the appeal if it happens and they do use that reason. Which is why I think this guy is basically blowing smoke
Actually, he did criticize Motorola at least as severely as Apple. See Mueller's blog for the details.
Funny how zzz and gatorguy seem to leave that part out.
So the judge calls the preceedings frivolous, but can't/won't disclose those proceedings. (due to the "seal" over the docs) So nobody gets a chance to rebut his statements. As noted elsewhere, this would have been a good opportunity for him to keep his mouth shut. He could have worked directly with Apple over his concerns. But he had to go to the press...
Actually, he did criticize Motorola at least as severely as Apple. See Mueller's blog for the details.
Funny how zzz and gatorguy seem to leave that part out.
The Moto scolding was almost two months ago. This Apple news happened this week which is why AI wrote a new article. If anything it shows how fair Judge Posner is treating each party. When Apple is wrong they get the Judge's ire just as well as when Moto strays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
The ITC is not a court, it's an admin board and on more than one occasion their sanctions have been overturned in appeals or in the actual trial.
And it's probably not that unusual of an occurrence.
The ruling was by a judge in a legal proceeding in and ITC court. Yes, he can issue sanctions, which he did. I don't what you're depending on for support that attorneys lying to the court and getting sanctioned happens regularly. As real attorneys posted in this thread, it's pretty unusual.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdwatson
It IS unusual. Monetary sanctions against counsel is definitely unusual.
That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Keep at 'em Apple.
"The next such motion, and I shall forbid (Apple) to file any motions without first moving for leave to file," the judge added in his decision.
It isn't the lawsuits he's objecting to as such, but rather, Apple's last-minute maneuverings. Some of them might be unorthodox.
And the judge is likely to get himself slapped down by the appeals court if Apple chooses to appeal. They have the legal right to file anything they wish. A court can not take away that right simply because the judge is lazy and doesn't want to deal with all the patents that are involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.
Good Lord Jr, read your own link which is titled
ALJ Pender Issues Sanctions Order Against Apple In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)
http://www.itcblog.com/20120427/alj-pender-issues-sanctions-order-against-apple-in-certain-wireless-communication-devices-337-ta-745/
You must be multi-tasking and doing a poor job of it. Listening to Gatorguy rather than Jragosta today might be the better advice. Tomorrows another day, and maybe you'll be back to form by then.
I'm betting you won't admit you were wrong anyway. Let's see...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
For those of us who don't spend much time following the details of litigation, it would be interesting to know whether this kind of exchange is unusual, or typical for cases like this.
There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.
That's news to me. I wonder why AI didn't report it?
Here's a link to the NLJ story about it.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202550466388&slreturn=1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not really. It was a technicality and happens sometimes.
Yes really. It's very unusual for seasoned attorneys to get court sanctions, not to mention embarrassing for the attorneys involved. You must be bored to continually call others wrong all day just to disagree..
Not only that, but the sanctions were for lying to the court in the opening statement and in a pretrial brief. Pretty nasty stuff.
I originally mentioned it a few days back. Perhaps as one poster here said, Apple getting a court sanction wasn't unusual anyway, so nothing new and worthy of reporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Good Lord Jr, read your own link which is titled
ALJ Pender Issues Sanctions Order Against Apple In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)
http://www.itcblog.com/20120427/alj-pender-issues-sanctions-order-against-apple-in-certain-wireless-communication-devices-337-ta-745/
You must be multi-tasking and doing a poor job of it. Listening to Gatorguy rather than Jragosta today might be the better advice. Tomorrows another day, and maybe you'll be back to form by then.
I'm betting you won't admit you were wrong anyway. Let's see...
Yes, I'm aware that it's too much for you to read past the headlines. If you actually read the article, it says:
"Thus, ALJ Pender ordered Apple to reimburse MMI for the effort and reasonable costs spent in responding to Apple’s erroneous position and in responding to Order No. 32."
Of course, no one expects you to admit that you're wrong because virtually every post you make is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, I'm aware that it's too much for you to read past the headlines. If you actually read the article, it says:
"Thus, ALJ Pender ordered Apple to reimburse MMI for the effort and reasonable costs spent in responding to Apple’s erroneous position and in responding to Order No. 32."
Of course, no one expects you to admit that you're wrong because virtually every post you make is wrong.
So Jragosta, did the judge order sanctions against Apple as I wrote, or didn't order any as you claimed (writing "That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions.")
Only one of us can be right. I already know the answer.
Just curious if you can admit when you're wrong.
FWIW I had posted news several days ago that Apple was ordered to pay Moto's added legal fees that resulted from the dishonesty of their counsel. You're not telling me anything I didn't know long before you took notice this had happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
It's no wonder that Tim Cook dislikes using litigation; Apple is spending loads of money on lawyers and getting precious little in return.
Well, if he dislikes it so much, I bet he could make it stop. This and the guy suing for a logic board replacement, where NVIDIA would have paid for the replacement but, instead, Apple is sending barristers to court means the legal team's culture is off.
I don't like post-Jobs Apple so much, and everything I hear makes me like it slightly less. (Though if I get a high-res (greater than 1080p) MacBook monitor in the refresh, much will be forgiven.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So Jragosta, did the judge order sanctions against Apple as I wrote, or didn't order any as you claimed (writing "That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions.")
Only one of us can be right. I already know the answer.
Just curious if you can admit when you're wrong.
FWIW I had posted news several days ago that Apple was ordered to pay Moto's added legal fees that resulted from the dishonesty of their counsel. You're not telling me anything I didn't know long before you took notice this had happened.
You said that it was very unusual and indicated egregious behavior on Apple's part. In reality, having one party ordered to pay the other's legal fees is not the least bit unusual.
And the most common use of 'sanctions' is a fine that the party pays to the court - which didn't happen in this case.
And the judge very much so has the authority to control his docket and order what the parties may file and when. I’m not sure where you have gotten your information.
To correct an error in the story, Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is just sitting by designation on the district court.
Jragosta, it was a really simple question. Was I right that the Judge ordered sanctions, or were you when claiming he didn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
It sounds like you are confusing attorney’s fees, which can be a remedy for the ultimate cause of action, with sanctions. The former does happen often enough. But being penalized for filing a frivolous motion, and being ordered to pay the adversary’s costs in opposing that specific motion, is much rarer. The linked article expressly identifies it as a sanction under 19 C.F.R. § 210.4, so that should eliminate your confusion.
And the judge very much so has the authority to control his docket and order what the parties may file and when. I’m not sure where you have gotten your information.
To correct an error in the story, Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is just sitting by designation on the district court.
Thank you sir for your input. JrAgosta still won't admit he was wrong however, so expect him to tell you that you have no idea what you're "talkin'" about any more than the Judge's in the two cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
He may as well. He's already on both Oracle and Microsoft's payroll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There was ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yes really. It's very ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Good Lord Jr....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I originally ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So Jragosta, ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Jragosta, it was a really simple ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Thank you sir .....
Holy crap! 28% of the posts so far!! Give us a frackin' break...... PLEASE.
Get a job. A life. Take a walk. Whatever.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was hanging a ceiling fan.
EDIT: Being a bit more serious, while you might think that's a lot of posts I'm not even in the top 10 for the past week. The top 3 are TS (a mod, so expected), Jragosta and Z.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/pages/stats/top/range/7day/#members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Nothing new judge.
every case has crap like this but hey he can name drop Apple and get some fame.
He doesn't seem to be tired of Moto's FRAND abuse, or Samsung's.
I wonder when he declares against Apple in one of these cases how fast they will appeal on the grounds that they weren't allowed to file a motion because the judge was in a cranky mood and didn't want to be bothered with it. Probably get the appeal if it happens and they do use that reason. Which is why I think this guy is basically blowing smoke
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.
The ITC is not a court, it's an admin board and on more than one occasion their sanctions have been overturned in appeals or in the actual trial.
And it's probably not that unusual of an occurrence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rufwork
This and the guy suing for a logic board replacement, where NVIDIA would have paid for the replacement
Therein lies the issue. The facts. As in you don't have them straight and neither do some of the posters. the ITC thing was not a COURT sanction because the ITC isn't a court. And the guy with the NVIDIA issue was refused that replacement unless he agreed to other non covered repairs that were to items that rendered his computer unusable. He didn't want to pay the $500 or whatever for the other problem so he went to small claims to force the issue over replacing the board which put Apple in a position to just give him a whole new computer to shut him up even though he didn't deserve one.
and so on. And for the record, all of this started very much in the Jobs era so don't go blaming Tim Cook for any of it. If anything he's trying to end it quickly by agreeing to things like the Samsung mediation talks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
every case has crap like this but hey he can name drop Apple and get some fame.
He doesn't seem to be tired of Moto's FRAND abuse, or Samsung's.
I wonder when he declares against Apple in one of these cases how fast they will appeal on the grounds that they weren't allowed to file a motion because the judge was in a cranky mood and didn't want to be bothered with it. Probably get the appeal if it happens and they do use that reason. Which is why I think this guy is basically blowing smoke
Actually, he did criticize Motorola at least as severely as Apple. See Mueller's blog for the details.
Funny how zzz and gatorguy seem to leave that part out.
So the judge calls the preceedings frivolous, but can't/won't disclose those proceedings. (due to the "seal" over the docs) So nobody gets a chance to rebut his statements. As noted elsewhere, this would have been a good opportunity for him to keep his mouth shut. He could have worked directly with Apple over his concerns. But he had to go to the press...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Actually, he did criticize Motorola at least as severely as Apple. See Mueller's blog for the details.
Funny how zzz and gatorguy seem to leave that part out.
The Moto scolding was almost two months ago. This Apple news happened this week which is why AI wrote a new article. If anything it shows how fair Judge Posner is treating each party. When Apple is wrong they get the Judge's ire just as well as when Moto strays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
The ITC is not a court, it's an admin board and on more than one occasion their sanctions have been overturned in appeals or in the actual trial.
And it's probably not that unusual of an occurrence.
The ruling was by a judge in a legal proceeding in and ITC court. Yes, he can issue sanctions, which he did. I don't what you're depending on for support that attorneys lying to the court and getting sanctioned happens regularly. As real attorneys posted in this thread, it's pretty unusual.