The entire story of the trial would make for a spectacular buddy comedy movie, and it isn't even anywhere near done! Follow the exploits of the Samsung lawyers as they bumble their way through failure after failure, just stacking on the incompetence.
It's like a pie truck crashing into an international clown convention. Horrible, but still hilarious.
Ya' did it again... Not a movie, but an on and on and on-going TV series... Let's see, we could call it Courtroom... And it could star Britney Spears as Susan Estrich... They are both mentally screwed up, but have very nice, big ... smiles (and cleavage, too!).
Rofl, seriously though, Samsung is so pathetically hilarious that every time I read another of these articles in disbelief it feels more like im reading the onion than actual news, I have to stop and tell myself against my own intuition that this is actually real.
How did this even make it to trial? Is anyone else here as awestruck at how lopsided and ridiculous this whole thing is? Even die hard samsung fans have to be struggling internally with supporting this nonsense.
The Australian trial was equally hilarious as well. That's where Samscum's own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between the two products. Also, one of the Samscum lawyers was removing an affidavits from his brief case, in court, and accidently tore it in two, so the signature was separated from the text. Or so he said. Seeing what they are trying to pull in this courtroom makes me wonder about that affidavits now.
The other sites reporting this (yesterday) are saying that if true, it would cause the whole case to be collapsed and decided in Apple's favour. I hope that's not true. I want Apple to win, but to win on a technicality without the central issue being decided would be a bad thing for everyone really.
Also not mentioned in this article ... the lawyer in question is a Fox news commentator. Can't make this stuff up!
Estrich was featured on Fox News quite often during the Clinton-Lowinsky Affair, Eliån Gonzales... She regularly took (and takes) the side of liberals -- AIR, she defended Clinton and the deportion of Gonzales... So, the fact that Estrich appears on Fox News (along with Combs, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera (Jerry Rivers at Univ. of Arizona), and others -- does not mean that she is a biased conservative as you seem to be suggesting with your dismissive comment.
The Australian trial was equally hilarious as well. That's where Samscum's own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between the two products. Also, one of the Samscum lawyers was removing an affidavits from his brief case, in court, and accidently tore it in two, so the signature was separated from the text. Or so he said. Seeing what they are trying to pull in this courtroom makes me wonder about that affidavits now.
lol, it makes me wonder when this whole spectacle will just be over. At what point will the judge just loose her cool and say ive had enough of this stupid crap and toss the case out, or rule in apples favor.
The other sites reporting this (yesterday) are saying that if true, it would cause the whole case to be collapsed and decided in Apple's favour. I hope that's not true. I want Apple to win, but to win on a technicality without the central issue being decided would be a bad thing for everyone really.
Also not mentioned in this article ... the lawyer in question is a Fox news commentator. Can't make this stuff up!
As a liberal/left commentator, often substituting for Alan Colmes, and was Michael Dukakis' campaign manager....not sure why the Fox comment was relevant...
As an attorney licensed to practice in a federal jurisdiction, while the attorney indeed made an error, it's not exactly the end of the world. I wouldn't expect the court to be too upset, although federal judges have been known to blow a gasket for less. Getting admitted to a federal jurisdiction when you're already admitted in another is pretty simple affair, and usually in federal cases it's simply a matter of moving to represent an individual "pro hac vice". Again no biggie.
This is a bit embarrassing (I know exactly where I'm admitted to practice - I find it hard to understand how someone cannot know their status), but not grounds for a mistrial when the attorney argued a motion hearing, not the trial itself. They could argue theoretically their counsel was ineffective during the hearing which played a part in what was or was not admissible in court, but I don't see that getting any traction.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The entire story of the trial would make for a spectacular buddy comedy movie, and it isn't even anywhere near done! Follow the exploits of the Samsung lawyers as they bumble their way through failure after failure, just stacking on the incompetence.
It's like a pie truck crashing into an international clown convention. Horrible, but still hilarious.
Ya' did it again... Not a movie, but an on and on and on-going TV series... Let's see, we could call it Courtroom... And it could star Britney Spears as Susan Estrich... They are both mentally screwed up, but have very nice, big ... smiles (and cleavage, too!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Or a guy dressed as a peanut being crushed to death by an Elephant.
Chuckles the Clown!
I should be shocked that this could happen with a massive multi-billion $$ company, but I'm not.
I think apple should motion for circus music to be played everytime a samsung lawyer speaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
Could this potentially be grounds for a mistrial or make appeals easier for Samsung since their lawyer breached the law?
That is exactly what I was thinking too!
[VIDEO]
[/VIDEO]
Quote:
Originally Posted by xRCx
Rofl, seriously though, Samsung is so pathetically hilarious that every time I read another of these articles in disbelief it feels more like im reading the onion than actual news, I have to stop and tell myself against my own intuition that this is actually real.
How did this even make it to trial? Is anyone else here as awestruck at how lopsided and ridiculous this whole thing is? Even die hard samsung fans have to be struggling internally with supporting this nonsense.
The Australian trial was equally hilarious as well. That's where Samscum's own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between the two products. Also, one of the Samscum lawyers was removing an affidavits from his brief case, in court, and accidently tore it in two, so the signature was separated from the text. Or so he said. Seeing what they are trying to pull in this courtroom makes me wonder about that affidavits now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I'd agree she should be seriously punished. Deportation to Korea would seem fitting! LOL
Yeah, to the North part where the son is no longer Il.
Geez! Susan Estrich is that far left-wing dingbat who appears on Fox News from time to time. Samsung must be trying to throw the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The other sites reporting this (yesterday) are saying that if true, it would cause the whole case to be collapsed and decided in Apple's favour. I hope that's not true. I want Apple to win, but to win on a technicality without the central issue being decided would be a bad thing for everyone really.
Also not mentioned in this article ... the lawyer in question is a Fox news commentator. Can't make this stuff up!
Estrich was featured on Fox News quite often during the Clinton-Lowinsky Affair, Eliån Gonzales... She regularly took (and takes) the side of liberals -- AIR, she defended Clinton and the deportion of Gonzales... So, the fact that Estrich appears on Fox News (along with Combs, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera (Jerry Rivers at Univ. of Arizona), and others -- does not mean that she is a biased conservative as you seem to be suggesting with your dismissive comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
The Australian trial was equally hilarious as well. That's where Samscum's own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between the two products. Also, one of the Samscum lawyers was removing an affidavits from his brief case, in court, and accidently tore it in two, so the signature was separated from the text. Or so he said. Seeing what they are trying to pull in this courtroom makes me wonder about that affidavits now.
lol, it makes me wonder when this whole spectacle will just be over. At what point will the judge just loose her cool and say ive had enough of this stupid crap and toss the case out, or rule in apples favor.
At this rate, Apple just needs to show up in court every day and let the defendant present first.
I wonder if I can trade my tickets to the comedy club tonight for tickets to the baseball game? I've had enough laughs for today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xRCx
Even die hard samsung fans have to be struggling internally with supporting this nonsense.
To them it's just more proof that:-
i) the judge is biased,
ii) Apple paid the judge off.
Originally Posted by hill60
To them it's just more proof that:-
i) the judge is biased,
ii) Apple paid the judge off.
"Koh got the I-phone 5 early in exchange for making Samsung look like idiots! Bias!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by xRCx
I think apple should motion for circus music to be played everytime a samsung lawyer speaks.
Ahh.. Thunder And Blazes... Hum along with me now...
Dat, Dada Dah! Dat, Dada Dah.... Dat, dada dahdah dadah dadah; Dat, dada dahdah dadah dadah....
I have the music -- just no way to post it to AI, anymore
As a liberal/left commentator, often substituting for Alan Colmes, and was Michael Dukakis' campaign manager....not sure why the Fox comment was relevant...
As an attorney licensed to practice in a federal jurisdiction, while the attorney indeed made an error, it's not exactly the end of the world. I wouldn't expect the court to be too upset, although federal judges have been known to blow a gasket for less. Getting admitted to a federal jurisdiction when you're already admitted in another is pretty simple affair, and usually in federal cases it's simply a matter of moving to represent an individual "pro hac vice". Again no biggie.
This is a bit embarrassing (I know exactly where I'm admitted to practice - I find it hard to understand how someone cannot know their status), but not grounds for a mistrial when the attorney argued a motion hearing, not the trial itself. They could argue theoretically their counsel was ineffective during the hearing which played a part in what was or was not admissible in court, but I don't see that getting any traction.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I have the music -- just no way to post it to AI, anymore
You can zip it!
Unless it's over 5MB…
it's obvious the Law has an Apple bias.