How can documents that were specifically excluded from the trial, be argued to be "part of the trial" simply because they were excluded in the pretrial (which is part of the trial)?
I mean WTF?
If that's true then what's the point of the pretrial or including/excluding evidence at all?
This is all just theatrics intended to position Samsung as an aggrieved party acting morally, but tripped up by the evil machinations of Apple and trampled under the wheels of justice by a biased judge, etc. etc. blah, blah. I'd rather they just argue the case on the facts.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } Except for one important thing, the statements that were made in public were excluded from evidence. Not to mention that freedom of speech is not absolute. Samsung's lawyer can certainly be sanctioned because he made statements based on "facts" not in evidence. If you did that in cross you would get an sustained objected and a warning from the judge. You cannot get around an order of exclusion by just blabbing about it in public. That can be seen as manipulating the jury.
Quote:
But to simply claim the guy doesn't know some basic legal terminology is preposterous. Good to know everyone's intuitions and feelings on these matters is so much more salient than arguments based on legal precedent.
Nobody is saying that. There are Lawyers are willing to bend the rules all the time to get their clients a favorable ruling. Ever hear of court room theatrics? There are a ton of things that lawyers (on both sides) can do to affect the outcome of a trial. Heck, I am willing to bet that some do that knowing darn well that it's not proper. We cannot take Samsung's word on this matter just outright - they are framing their arguement to put them in the best light.
It's similar to how proponents of pseudo science try to misuse terms like "theory" despite having it explained properly over and over to try and gain support to their beliefs by the public who doesn't understand.
I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.
A declaration that was not made in a legal setting, ie inside the court, yes?
Except for one important thing, the statements that were made in public were excluded from evidence. Not to mention that freedom of speech is not absolute. Samsung's lawyer can certainly be sanctioned because he made statements based on "facts" not in evidence. If you did that in cross you would get an sustained objected and a warning from the judge. You cannot get around an order of exclusion by just blabbing about it in public. That can be seen as manipulating the jury.
Sorry but:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
These are mostly judge Koh's words. The pretrial information is part of the public record, but the jury has not been made aware of that information, unless they read that information in the news prior to the jury selection.
1: The court being open to the public is irrelevant to this matter. Nothing in this has anything to do with the public being denied the right to the trial. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody is talking about access to the trial by anybody. It has no bearing as to what is going on in this matter.
2: Being "open" doesn't mean what you are trying to imply. It just means that there isn't any sort of a closed court or a gag order. That doesn't mean that Samsung can just disregard orders of exclusion about evidence that was already rejected and essentially suppressed. Once evidence is suppressed, the only way to make it "public" is to appeal the decision. It does not mean that you can just talk about matters that are not part of the trial in an attempt to sway opinion.
Look at it this way. Who would you trust more: The judge who was not happy about Samsung talking about evidence that was rejected and cannot be brought up in trial (of which can trigger a gag order) or a lawyer representing an interested party essentially saying "I'm not guilty! Honest!" I trust the judge here because they are the one in charge of the proceedings and knows the rules.
Bravo. We have a winner here. This is in the nutshell what is happening here. Yet, the I-sheepishness and f4anboism rule the day as it always do here.. Thank you for saving this thread from oblivion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdav
It wasn't excluded because of the content, it was excluded because it was submitted after the discovery phase and this is a timed trial. Apple would not have had time to examine or refute the photo at such short notice. Samsung had months to enter this evidence. That they waited indicates they were playing a game to either hit Apple with this while denying them time to prepare, or to make a fuss about how "this critical evidence" was refused by the judge. The photo and phone proved little - it was a thick slider phone with a keyboard that just happened to be a rectangle viewed from the front. What it did do was sway public opinion and possibly the jury and help establish material for appeal.
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
These are mostly judge Koh's words. The pretrial information is part of the public record, but the jury has not been made aware of that information, unless they read that information in the news prior to the jury selection.
As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these highly-paid professionals are dying for your input.
It wasn't excluded because of the content, it was excluded because it was submitted after the discovery phase and this is a timed trial. Apple would not have had time to examine or refute the photo at such short notice. Samsung had months to enter this evidence. That they waited indicates they were playing a game to either hit Apple with this while denying them time to prepare, or to make a fuss about how "this critical evidence" was refused by the judge. The photo and phone proved little - it was a thick slider phone with a keyboard that just happened to be a rectangle viewed from the front. What it did do was sway public opinion and possibly the jury and help establish material for appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
Bravo. We have a winner here. This is in the nutshell what is happening here. Yet, the I-sheepishness and f4anboism rule the day as it always do here.. Thank you for saving this thread from oblivion.
There's only 1 person here who can't grasp this. And they aren't an iSheep...
As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these highly-paid professionals are dying for your input.
How about you read what Koh has to say on the matter:
As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these highly-paid professionals are dying for your input.
How about you read what Koh has to say on the matter:
You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.
You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.
You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.
I have no illicit hidden motives. So it is entirely possible that distinction is lost on me, that I'm simply too stupid to understand the point, as other have suggested. Here is what do I know though. I read Samsung's pretrial brief, and it included whatever it is that isn't supposed to be disclosed to the jury. And here's the kicker, I read that brief and saw all the exhibits included in it, before Quinn released his statement of opinion regarding this information. Now, as I pointed out, the Ninth Circuit says no sanctions can be imposed on an attorney for sharing his opinion of information that is part of the public records, unless the claims/comments are false and demeaning. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect. So I'm having a hard time understanding how what Quinn did is to terrible.
Just for the sake of argument, imagine I'm a incredibly naive, but interested interlocutor. Explain to me in very simple and clear terms, without misleading, distortion, etc., why what Quinn did is wrong and why you think he can be sanctioned despite the legal precedents I pointed to.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion and pointing me in a direction that I should investigate.
I have no illicit hidden motives. So it is entirely possible that distinction is lost on me, that I'm simply too stupid to understand the point, as other have suggested. Here is what do I know though. I read Samsung's pretrial brief, and it included whatever it is that isn't supposed to be disclosed to the jury. And here's the kicker, I read that brief and saw all the exhibits included in it, before Quinn released his statement of opinion regarding this information. Now, as I pointed out, the Ninth Circuit says no sanctions can be imposed on an attorney for sharing his opinion of information that is part of the public records, unless the claims/comments are false and demeaning. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect. So I'm having a hard time understanding how what Quinn did is to terrible.
Just for the sake of argument, imagine I'm a incredibly naive, but interested interlocutor. Explain to me in very simple and clear terms, without misleading, distortion, etc., why what Quinn did is wrong and why you think he can be sanctioned despite the legal precedents I pointed to.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion and pointing me in a direction that I should investigate.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
How can documents that were specifically excluded from the trial, be argued to be "part of the trial" simply because they were excluded in the pretrial (which is part of the trial)?
I mean WTF?
If that's true then what's the point of the pretrial or including/excluding evidence at all?
This is all just theatrics intended to position Samsung as an aggrieved party acting morally, but tripped up by the evil machinations of Apple and trampled under the wheels of justice by a biased judge, etc. etc. blah, blah. I'd rather they just argue the case on the facts.
http://docs.dpaq.de/1323-applesamsungcv01846doc1256ordertoseal.pdf
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Except for one important thing, the statements that were made in public were excluded from evidence. Not to mention that freedom of speech is not absolute. Samsung's lawyer can certainly be sanctioned because he made statements based on "facts" not in evidence. If you did that in cross you would get an sustained objected and a warning from the judge. You cannot get around an order of exclusion by just blabbing about it in public. That can be seen as manipulating the jury.
Quote:
But to simply claim the guy doesn't know some basic legal terminology is preposterous. Good to know everyone's intuitions and feelings on these matters is so much more salient than arguments based on legal precedent.
Nobody is saying that. There are Lawyers are willing to bend the rules all the time to get their clients a favorable ruling. Ever hear of court room theatrics? There are a ton of things that lawyers (on both sides) can do to affect the outcome of a trial. Heck, I am willing to bet that some do that knowing darn well that it's not proper. We cannot take Samsung's word on this matter just outright - they are framing their arguement to put them in the best light.
It's similar to how proponents of pseudo science try to misuse terms like "theory" despite having it explained properly over and over to try and gain support to their beliefs by the public who doesn't understand.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.
A declaration that was not made in a legal setting, ie inside the court, yes?
No it was the declaration signed and submitted to the court under penalty of perjury. It's linked in the OP.
Why would he? I thought he hadn't done anything wrong.
Sorry but:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
These are mostly judge Koh's words. The pretrial information is part of the public record, but the jury has not been made aware of that information, unless they read that information in the news prior to the jury selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sessamoid
Simple mistakes make by simpletons. You're blocked by me, too.
So, was that sentance also a simple mistake?
Grrrr....
1: The court being open to the public is irrelevant to this matter. Nothing in this has anything to do with the public being denied the right to the trial. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody is talking about access to the trial by anybody. It has no bearing as to what is going on in this matter.
2: Being "open" doesn't mean what you are trying to imply. It just means that there isn't any sort of a closed court or a gag order. That doesn't mean that Samsung can just disregard orders of exclusion about evidence that was already rejected and essentially suppressed. Once evidence is suppressed, the only way to make it "public" is to appeal the decision. It does not mean that you can just talk about matters that are not part of the trial in an attempt to sway opinion.
Look at it this way. Who would you trust more: The judge who was not happy about Samsung talking about evidence that was rejected and cannot be brought up in trial (of which can trigger a gag order) or a lawyer representing an interested party essentially saying "I'm not guilty! Honest!" I trust the judge here because they are the one in charge of the proceedings and knows the rules.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Bravo. We have a winner here. This is in the nutshell what is happening here. Yet, the I-sheepishness and f4anboism rule the day as it always do here.. Thank you for saving this thread from oblivion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdav
It wasn't excluded because of the content, it was excluded because it was submitted after the discovery phase and this is a timed trial. Apple would not have had time to examine or refute the photo at such short notice. Samsung had months to enter this evidence. That they waited indicates they were playing a game to either hit Apple with this while denying them time to prepare, or to make a fuss about how "this critical evidence" was refused by the judge. The photo and phone proved little - it was a thick slider phone with a keyboard that just happened to be a rectangle viewed from the front. What it did do was sway public opinion and possibly the jury and help establish material for appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Sorry but:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
These are mostly judge Koh's words. The pretrial information is part of the public record, but the jury has not been made aware of that information, unless they read that information in the news prior to the jury selection.
As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these highly-paid professionals are dying for your input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdav
It wasn't excluded because of the content, it was excluded because it was submitted after the discovery phase and this is a timed trial. Apple would not have had time to examine or refute the photo at such short notice. Samsung had months to enter this evidence. That they waited indicates they were playing a game to either hit Apple with this while denying them time to prepare, or to make a fuss about how "this critical evidence" was refused by the judge. The photo and phone proved little - it was a thick slider phone with a keyboard that just happened to be a rectangle viewed from the front. What it did do was sway public opinion and possibly the jury and help establish material for appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
Bravo. We have a winner here. This is in the nutshell what is happening here. Yet, the I-sheepishness and f4anboism rule the day as it always do here.. Thank you for saving this thread from oblivion.
There's only 1 person here who can't grasp this. And they aren't an iSheep...
Here is one of the real knock offs Apple should knock down. Have a fun everybody.
How about you read what Koh has to say on the matter:
http://docs.dpaq.de/1323-applesamsungcv01846doc1256ordertoseal.pdf
Originally Posted by hjb
Here is one of the real knock offs Apple should knock down.
It's in China. There's nothing they can do.
You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's in China. There's nothing they can do.
I thought China is a growing market for Apple. Even though it is not, Apple should protect its IP there in China. Not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.
Yep.
And the F700 isn't going to help Samsung much anyhow: http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/
I have no illicit hidden motives. So it is entirely possible that distinction is lost on me, that I'm simply too stupid to understand the point, as other have suggested. Here is what do I know though. I read Samsung's pretrial brief, and it included whatever it is that isn't supposed to be disclosed to the jury. And here's the kicker, I read that brief and saw all the exhibits included in it, before Quinn released his statement of opinion regarding this information. Now, as I pointed out, the Ninth Circuit says no sanctions can be imposed on an attorney for sharing his opinion of information that is part of the public records, unless the claims/comments are false and demeaning. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect. So I'm having a hard time understanding how what Quinn did is to terrible.
Just for the sake of argument, imagine I'm a incredibly naive, but interested interlocutor. Explain to me in very simple and clear terms, without misleading, distortion, etc., why what Quinn did is wrong and why you think he can be sanctioned despite the legal precedents I pointed to.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion and pointing me in a direction that I should investigate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I have no illicit hidden motives. So it is entirely possible that distinction is lost on me, that I'm simply too stupid to understand the point, as other have suggested. Here is what do I know though. I read Samsung's pretrial brief, and it included whatever it is that isn't supposed to be disclosed to the jury. And here's the kicker, I read that brief and saw all the exhibits included in it, before Quinn released his statement of opinion regarding this information. Now, as I pointed out, the Ninth Circuit says no sanctions can be imposed on an attorney for sharing his opinion of information that is part of the public records, unless the claims/comments are false and demeaning. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect. So I'm having a hard time understanding how what Quinn did is to terrible.
Just for the sake of argument, imagine I'm a incredibly naive, but interested interlocutor. Explain to me in very simple and clear terms, without misleading, distortion, etc., why what Quinn did is wrong and why you think he can be sanctioned despite the legal precedents I pointed to.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion and pointing me in a direction that I should investigate.
Jog on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
But for some reason Samsung couldn't find their own photos from 2006-2007 in 2011-2012
Maybe they do need Siri
Which is the part that strikes me as really bizarre.
They only *just* found out they had been working on this phone since 2006-2007?