Are you serious? Every company lies and has corruption. Even your precious Apple. Just because you don't get caught that doesn't make it right.
In the context of your reply to 69ergoo, it almost sounds like you are arguing two wrongs make a right, or Apple lies, so it's ok for Samsung to lie? What a strange argument.
I doubt it. It sounds like a procedural issue, although she or the legal team could be sanctioned over the (cough) "omission" (cough)
Anything the jury doesn't hear about is unlikely to make a difference in the outcome. But I do find it interesting that Emanual was allegedly brought in because of "increased pressure on the team's other members." What does that mean? Have a couple of lawyers been already pulled out? Was it too hard for some to keep a straight face while arguing Samsung's case before the court. Had some lost all hope and advised total capitulation?
No most that will happen is a fine. Probably in the millions. Samsung does look guilty but I think the fine will be about 250million give or take a few million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
lol, not quite. Samsung is a gigantic corporation. Stock value wise Apple may be bigger, but Samsung is far more diversified and established. If Samsungs entire phone division disappeared it would be a blow, but not exactly a staggering one. That being said, this case will likely amount to little more than a couple hundred million in fines, a drop in the bucket for both of these juggernauts.
Yeah but how can anyone take them seriously after this trial?
Yeah but how can anyone take them seriously after this trial?
people will still continue to buy fheir products. When the Apple app store was embarrassed due to the employee that simultaneously was banning legit apps while promoting his own "fart" apps, Apple woke up with pie on its face, but people woke up the next morning and still bought iphones. Same thing goes for Samsung, regardless of amusing gaffes the Galaxy SIII is still a great phone and people will still continue to buy it.
people will still continue to buy fheir products. When the Apple app store was embarrassed due to the employee that simultaneously was banning legit apps while promoting his own "fart" apps, Apple woke up with pie on its face, but people woke up the next morning and still bought iphones. Same thing goes for Samsung, regardless of amusing gaffes the Galaxy SIII is still a great phone and people will still continue to buy it.
Yep, a multi-billion dollar patent trial that may point to a corrupt or non-existent innovation process and a few silly apps that may need to be pulled are the same in terms of corporate impact.
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.
Well said. This is more embarrassing than anything to the Samsung legal team.
Susan Estrich . . . the Carol Channing of the courtroom! (Makes sense if you've ever heard her speak.)
Except Carol Channing is a really nice lady with an unusual and distinctive voice. This lady might have the voice but is by all accounts not very nice at all.
That wretch of a woman is a law professor at USC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but should she not be sanctioned and get her ABA status to practice law disabled until she complies?
Better yet. Allow Apple to show the movie Pinocchio when Samsung's lawyers are speaking and then show a video of the Samsung attorney's nose growing.
Your link has nothing to do with penalties for failing to request admission to a specific court for an otherwise licensed attorney and member of the California State Bar in good standing, which she is. She's properly licensed to practice law in California and has been for a long time. Her failure to ensure she had formal admittance in that particular court is not a criminal offense. Read your link paying attention to clarifications if you have a question about that. There's no danger of her spending a potential "year in jail" under penalties you've cited in that document.
In Ms Estrich' case, admission was a formality tho a required one, and accomplished very quickly and without fanfare. AI article title implies she wasn't licensed to practice law, which is inaccurate. She had not yet been granted admission to that specific district, a huge difference.
Since the Anti-Apple Brigade has realized Samsung is Apple's current target.
Bleck.. that sounds like a boring reason to support anything. I only commented as I found this one genuinely surprising. I'm wondering if details are missing here. Overall it seems a bit weird to me unless she typically only works as a professor and media pundit. She must have passed the state bar, and this requires a certain amount of maintenance work/education every X number of years. It is an issue, just not one I would have expected.
Your link has nothing to do with penalties for failing to request admission to a specific court for an otherwise licensed attorney and member of the California State Bar in good standing, which she is. She's properly licensed to practice law in California and has been for a long time. Her failure to ensure she had formal admittance in that particular court is not a criminal offense. Read your link paying attention to clarifications if you have a question about that. There's no danger of her spending a potential "year in jail" under penalties you've cited in that document.
In Ms Estrich' case, admission was a formality tho a required one, and accomplished very quickly and without fanfare. AI article title implies she wasn't licensed to practice law, which is inaccurate. She had not yet been granted admission to that specific district, a huge difference.
Even if that were true - and there's absolutely no reason to believe that you know more than the article's authors - it's really amazing that you're defending Samsung in this case.
- They've already been sanctioned 4 times in this case (according to Foss Patents)
- They violated the court's order not to bring witnesses into the court room
- They have an attorney who is not legally permitted to be arguing cases in front of the court
- They publicized evidence that the court told them was inadmissible - presumably in the hopes of tainting the jury
- They destroyed evidence - even after being sanctioned for doing so by a previous court
How many more times can they stick their middle finger up to the judge before they learn that laws are meant to be followed?
Frankly, their behavior in this trial supports Apple's allegations - they have no respect for the US legal system and seem to think that they're above the law.
Comments
In the context of your reply to 69ergoo, it almost sounds like you are arguing two wrongs make a right, or Apple lies, so it's ok for Samsung to lie? What a strange argument.
Hilarious! Really funny!
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Uh...I don't get it...couldn't she just copy someone else's license???
Hilarious! Really funny!
Well played!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I doubt it. It sounds like a procedural issue, although she or the legal team could be sanctioned over the (cough) "omission" (cough)
Anything the jury doesn't hear about is unlikely to make a difference in the outcome. But I do find it interesting that Emanual was allegedly brought in because of "increased pressure on the team's other members." What does that mean? Have a couple of lawyers been already pulled out? Was it too hard for some to keep a straight face while arguing Samsung's case before the court. Had some lost all hope and advised total capitulation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pragmatous
No most that will happen is a fine. Probably in the millions. Samsung does look guilty but I think the fine will be about 250million give or take a few million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
lol, not quite. Samsung is a gigantic corporation. Stock value wise Apple may be bigger, but Samsung is far more diversified and established. If Samsungs entire phone division disappeared it would be a blow, but not exactly a staggering one. That being said, this case will likely amount to little more than a couple hundred million in fines, a drop in the bucket for both of these juggernauts.
Yeah but how can anyone take them seriously after this trial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman
Yeah but how can anyone take them seriously after this trial?
people will still continue to buy fheir products. When the Apple app store was embarrassed due to the employee that simultaneously was banning legit apps while promoting his own "fart" apps, Apple woke up with pie on its face, but people woke up the next morning and still bought iphones. Same thing goes for Samsung, regardless of amusing gaffes the Galaxy SIII is still a great phone and people will still continue to buy it.
Yep, a multi-billion dollar patent trial that may point to a corrupt or non-existent innovation process and a few silly apps that may need to be pulled are the same in terms of corporate impact.
And yep, I am sure S3 sales are smooth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimguy
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.
Well said. This is more embarrassing than anything to the Samsung legal team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy
Susan Estrich . . . the Carol Channing of the courtroom! (Makes sense if you've ever heard her speak.)
Except Carol Channing is a really nice lady with an unusual and distinctive voice. This lady might have the voice but is by all accounts not very nice at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Uh...I don't get it...couldn't she just copy someone else's license???
hahahaha nice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Yeah, to the North part where the son is no longer Il.
...where kim jong is no longer ill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
Uh...I don't get it...couldn't she just copy someone else's license???
She can't. It would look like a bowl of water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xRCx
Even die hard samsung fans have to be struggling internally with supporting this nonsense.
Since when does Samsung have its own army of fanatics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
"Honest officer, I thought I had a license to drive this car here, I'll just go get one."
One rule for the average Joe, why should there be another one for lawyers?
It's something pretty specific. She would have had to pass the California bar. She's apparently just not admitted in that district.
Originally Posted by hmm
Since when does Samsung have its own army of fanatics?
Since the Anti-Apple Brigade has realized Samsung is Apple's current target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relefunt
I think the most unfair thing about this is that reality has a well-known Apple bias.
Denial.
Well said.
It could be grounds for disbarment.
It could also cost up to a year in jail:
http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/UPLpublic.pdf
Better yet. Allow Apple to show the movie Pinocchio when Samsung's lawyers are speaking and then show a video of the Samsung attorney's nose growing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Well said.
It could be grounds for disbarment.
It could also cost up to a year in jail:
http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/UPLpublic.pdf
Better yet. Allow Apple to show the movie Pinocchio when Samsung's lawyers are speaking and then show a video of the Samsung attorney's nose growing.
Your link has nothing to do with penalties for failing to request admission to a specific court for an otherwise licensed attorney and member of the California State Bar in good standing, which she is. She's properly licensed to practice law in California and has been for a long time. Her failure to ensure she had formal admittance in that particular court is not a criminal offense. Read your link paying attention to clarifications if you have a question about that. There's no danger of her spending a potential "year in jail" under penalties you've cited in that document.
In Ms Estrich' case, admission was a formality tho a required one, and accomplished very quickly and without fanfare. AI article title implies she wasn't licensed to practice law, which is inaccurate. She had not yet been granted admission to that specific district, a huge difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Since the Anti-Apple Brigade has realized Samsung is Apple's current target.
Bleck.. that sounds like a boring reason to support anything. I only commented as I found this one genuinely surprising. I'm wondering if details are missing here. Overall it seems a bit weird to me unless she typically only works as a professor and media pundit. She must have passed the state bar, and this requires a certain amount of maintenance work/education every X number of years. It is an issue, just not one I would have expected.
Even if that were true - and there's absolutely no reason to believe that you know more than the article's authors - it's really amazing that you're defending Samsung in this case.
- They've already been sanctioned 4 times in this case (according to Foss Patents)
- They violated the court's order not to bring witnesses into the court room
- They have an attorney who is not legally permitted to be arguing cases in front of the court
- They publicized evidence that the court told them was inadmissible - presumably in the hopes of tainting the jury
- They destroyed evidence - even after being sanctioned for doing so by a previous court
How many more times can they stick their middle finger up to the judge before they learn that laws are meant to be followed?
Frankly, their behavior in this trial supports Apple's allegations - they have no respect for the US legal system and seem to think that they're above the law.