Samsung lawyer literally begging the Judge to include evidence that had been reviewed three times earlier and was denied. "Quinn kicked off the day with an impassioned plea to allow the evidence, saying he had never begged a court for anything throughout a more than 30-year legal career but was begging now. Koh was unmoved, saying the court had reviewed the issue at least three times and denied Samsung's request." Then, afterwards, Samsung released the evidence in question anyway, which was a deposition in which an Apple designer says he was told to "create a phone inspired by Sony's designs.
This judge's comments raise important questions. One is many judge's see the courtroom in which they preside as "their" courtroom and their little fiefdom to control. The second problem might be based on failure of education. Lawyers, which also then may become judges, simply are poorly educated. Sure, they are have degrees in history, English, political science, etc. All very soft.
My guess is that far less than 1% of all judges and attorneys have any mathematical or scientific education or understanding, if any, likely only at the bachelor's degree level. The exception might be those attorney's involved with patent law.
What about computer science and programming? It would be useful to have attorney's and judges with such knowledge but knowledge here is not of the same nature as hard sciences. Simply put, attorneys and judges are not typically qualified to consider matters involving mathematical and scientific issues.
It's possible that judges with such a background or at least some manner of education in these areas do exist, but that would have been something to address a while ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I guess you failed to notice that the evidence was blocked not because of any bias, but because Samsung failed to submit it in a timely manner. Apparently, they have this view that court rules are optional - and it doesn't work that way.
Bleck you beat me to it. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up anyway. The reason she wouldn't admit it into evidence has been stated several times on here.
With Samsung only having 1 hour left, maybe they're trying to force Samsung to think long and hard about which witnesses to spend time cross examing? Or completely run them out of time cross examining the first 10 or whatever, so the remainder can go unchallenged?
You may be onto something there. Samscum should have paced themselves better earlier on in the trial. A boatload of unchallenged witnesses at this time can totally drive the jury to coming firmly over to Apple's side.
Samsung lawyer literally begging the Judge to include evidence that had been reviewed three times earlier and was denied. "Quinn kicked off the day with an impassioned plea to allow the evidence, saying he had never begged a court for anything throughout a more than 30-year legal career but was begging now. Koh was unmoved, saying the court had reviewed the issue at least three times and denied Samsung's request." Then, afterwards, Samsung released the evidence in question anyway, which was a deposition in which an Apple designer says he was told to "create a phone inspired by Sony's designs.
Honestly, it probably is already over, because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
No! No! and Double No! Samscum's lawyers were planning on a defense to create confusion in the jury's minds with unrelated information, with the intent of making the jury unsure of what Samscum did or didn't copy or clone. Since the evidence in question was irrelevant to the trial, it was three times denied. Judge Koh is not allowing either side's lawyers play games with the jury's minds which really needs to be done more often in high-stakes trials.
I agree. It doesn't seem like the best strategy. Are all 22 *really* needed? Can't pick the best of the 22 and use them? I'm guessing they aren't going to make it and then they'll be punished instead.
So instead of the Samsung side taking the majority of her wrath, they've now set themselves up to take a good bit of it and right at the end of the trial. Brilliant!
Not necessarily. Samsung has virtually no time left to cross-examine. Apple is just putting these witnesses one one after another after another for a few minutes to make a single point. They just might get all 22 in, or close enough that they can argue that the list was in good faith (avoiding sanctions). The jury is getting to hear nearly 2 dozen people make Apple's case and stew over it through the weekend before closing arguments early next week.
This judge's comments raise important questions. One is many judge's see the courtroom in which they preside as "their" courtroom and their little fiefdom to control. The second problem might be based on failure of education. Lawyers, which also then may become judges, simply are poorly educated. Sure, they are have degrees in history, English, political science, etc. All very soft.
My guess is that far less than 1% of all judges and attorneys have any mathematical or scientific education or understanding, if any, likely only at the bachelor's degree level. The exception might be those attorney's involved with patent law.
What about computer science and programming? It would be useful to have attorney's and judges with such knowledge but knowledge here is not of the same nature as hard sciences. Simply put, attorneys and judges are not typically qualified to consider matters involving mathematical and scientific issues.
She's a former patent lawyer. Patent law is a very unique part of the law, and most people who go into it have a technical background. This isn't like closing a real estate deal, or even trying a criminal case.
The judge has the right to limit testimony to prevent filibustering.
So instead of the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", it's "probably most of the truth, depending how fast you can talk and how quickly you can get people in the building" at the whims of a single person?
So instead of the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", it's "probably most of the truth, depending how fast you can talk and how quickly you can get people in the building" at the whims of a single person?
Not sure I like that.
The alternative is for the side with the most money to drag the trial out until they bankrupt the other side.
In addition, there's the problem of jury exhaustion. It is entirely plausible that a jury might better serve the interests of justice after 25 hours of testimony on each side rather than 1,000 hours of testimony that they will largely forget.
When properly applied, there's nothing wrong with it. There is, however, a question of whether Koh has been too heavy handed with her time limits - and the appeals court will have to decide that.
She's a former patent lawyer. Patent law is a very unique part of the law, and most people who go into it have a technical background. This isn't like closing a real estate deal, or even trying a criminal case.
Exactly.
Intellectual property rights are the least valuable types of things to take to trial, so 2 weeks or 20 weeks, doesn't matter. Both parties were given chances to settle, and they didn't take it. So the Judge is fully within her right to give a time limit to limit the "cruel and unusual punishment" to the Jury. Nobody in the world except the plaintiff is going to be inconvenienced while infringing products are on the market.
It's not like a criminal trial where someone caused the death of someone else and not letting all the evidence or witnesses in would change the outcome of the trial. In criminal law, loser either goes to jail or nothing happens and some lawyers get rich. In civil law, loser-pays, some employees get fired, and the lawyers get rich, no jailtime.
Samsung lawyer literally begging the Judge to include evidence that had been reviewed three times earlier and was denied. "Quinn kicked off the day with an impassioned plea to allow the evidence, saying he had never begged a court for anything throughout a more than 30-year legal career but was begging now. Koh was unmoved, saying the court had reviewed the issue at least three times and denied Samsung's request." Then, afterwards, Samsung released the evidence in question anyway, which was a deposition in which an Apple designer says he was told to "create a phone inspired by Sony's designs.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Samsung lawyer literally begging the Judge to include evidence that had been reviewed three times earlier and was denied. "Quinn kicked off the day with an impassioned plea to allow the evidence, saying he had never begged a court for anything throughout a more than 30-year legal career but was begging now. Koh was unmoved, saying the court had reviewed the issue at least three times and denied Samsung's request." Then, afterwards, Samsung released the evidence in question anyway, which was a deposition in which an Apple designer says he was told to "create a phone inspired by Sony's designs.
http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/10831/20120816/apple-vs-samsung-patent-trial-end-already.htm
Judge Says NO To Testimony From Samsung Designer
http://galaxystocks.com/24615/business-news/judge-says-no-to-testimony-from-samsung-designer-aapl/
Judge bars Samsung designer from testifying in Apple trial
Read more: http://www.itproportal.com/2012/08/13/judge-bars-samsung-designer-from-testifying-in-apple-trial/#ixzz23SuNRUQM
Key Samsung designer barred from testifying in Apple case
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491835-37/key-samsung-designer-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/
Honestly, it probably is already over, because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
So, trying it on again, eh?
Another set of "evidence" you (and Samsung) are pretending is relevant to this case,
but which points are all off-point...
Two are the ludicrous "bowl of water" diversion, and one, amazingly,
confirms that the person whose testimony you are crying over (the "bowl of water" guru),
didn't actually design any of the products contested in the suit...
Well, I didn't design any of them either, so,
why haven't they called on me to testify???
Anyway, that's two strikes for you, so, for your third, you have a choice of which question to answer, your pick:
-What is the sound of one hand clapping?
-What is the sound of the Samsung lunchroom at 12:17PM?
...we're waiting!
Kimchi flying all over the place. Look out troll. OMG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
This judge's comments raise important questions. One is many judge's see the courtroom in which they preside as "their" courtroom and their little fiefdom to control. The second problem might be based on failure of education. Lawyers, which also then may become judges, simply are poorly educated. Sure, they are have degrees in history, English, political science, etc. All very soft.
My guess is that far less than 1% of all judges and attorneys have any mathematical or scientific education or understanding, if any, likely only at the bachelor's degree level. The exception might be those attorney's involved with patent law.
What about computer science and programming? It would be useful to have attorney's and judges with such knowledge but knowledge here is not of the same nature as hard sciences. Simply put, attorneys and judges are not typically qualified to consider matters involving mathematical and scientific issues.
It's possible that judges with such a background or at least some manner of education in these areas do exist, but that would have been something to address a while ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I guess you failed to notice that the evidence was blocked not because of any bias, but because Samsung failed to submit it in a timely manner. Apparently, they have this view that court rules are optional - and it doesn't work that way.
Bleck you beat me to it. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up anyway. The reason she wouldn't admit it into evidence has been stated several times on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
Kimchi flying all over the place. Look out troll. OMG.
Quoted for future reference.
How easy people jump to the race/cultural card is beyond me.
They are typically used as a last resort when no other arguments/comments can be forthcoming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
With Samsung only having 1 hour left, maybe they're trying to force Samsung to think long and hard about which witnesses to spend time cross examing? Or completely run them out of time cross examining the first 10 or whatever, so the remainder can go unchallenged?
You may be onto something there. Samscum should have paced themselves better earlier on in the trial. A boatload of unchallenged witnesses at this time can totally drive the jury to coming firmly over to Apple's side.
Holy crap! Did some Googling and was surprised he's still alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Samsung lawyer literally begging the Judge to include evidence that had been reviewed three times earlier and was denied. "Quinn kicked off the day with an impassioned plea to allow the evidence, saying he had never begged a court for anything throughout a more than 30-year legal career but was begging now. Koh was unmoved, saying the court had reviewed the issue at least three times and denied Samsung's request." Then, afterwards, Samsung released the evidence in question anyway, which was a deposition in which an Apple designer says he was told to "create a phone inspired by Sony's designs.
http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/10831/20120816/apple-vs-samsung-patent-trial-end-already.htm
Judge Says NO To Testimony From Samsung Designer
http://galaxystocks.com/24615/business-news/judge-says-no-to-testimony-from-samsung-designer-aapl/
Judge bars Samsung designer from testifying in Apple trial
Read more: http://www.itproportal.com/2012/08/13/judge-bars-samsung-designer-from-testifying-in-apple-trial/#ixzz23SuNRUQM
Key Samsung designer barred from testifying in Apple case
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491835-37/key-samsung-designer-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/
Honestly, it probably is already over, because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
No! No! and Double No! Samscum's lawyers were planning on a defense to create confusion in the jury's minds with unrelated information, with the intent of making the jury unsure of what Samscum did or didn't copy or clone. Since the evidence in question was irrelevant to the trial, it was three times denied. Judge Koh is not allowing either side's lawyers play games with the jury's minds which really needs to be done more often in high-stakes trials.
@AppleInsider: You spelled "people" wrong in the first graph. xoxo
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind
I agree. It doesn't seem like the best strategy. Are all 22 *really* needed? Can't pick the best of the 22 and use them? I'm guessing they aren't going to make it and then they'll be punished instead.
So instead of the Samsung side taking the majority of her wrath, they've now set themselves up to take a good bit of it and right at the end of the trial. Brilliant!
Not necessarily. Samsung has virtually no time left to cross-examine. Apple is just putting these witnesses one one after another after another for a few minutes to make a single point. They just might get all 22 in, or close enough that they can argue that the list was in good faith (avoiding sanctions). The jury is getting to hear nearly 2 dozen people make Apple's case and stew over it through the weekend before closing arguments early next week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
This judge's comments raise important questions. One is many judge's see the courtroom in which they preside as "their" courtroom and their little fiefdom to control. The second problem might be based on failure of education. Lawyers, which also then may become judges, simply are poorly educated. Sure, they are have degrees in history, English, political science, etc. All very soft.
My guess is that far less than 1% of all judges and attorneys have any mathematical or scientific education or understanding, if any, likely only at the bachelor's degree level. The exception might be those attorney's involved with patent law.
What about computer science and programming? It would be useful to have attorney's and judges with such knowledge but knowledge here is not of the same nature as hard sciences. Simply put, attorneys and judges are not typically qualified to consider matters involving mathematical and scientific issues.
She's a former patent lawyer. Patent law is a very unique part of the law, and most people who go into it have a technical background. This isn't like closing a real estate deal, or even trying a criminal case.
Right, okay, why is this thing timed? Is there any legitimate reason?
The judge has the right to limit testimony to prevent filibustering.
However, if the limts are unreasonable, the case could be subject to appeal.
Originally Posted by jragosta
The judge has the right to limit testimony to prevent filibustering.
So instead of the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", it's "probably most of the truth, depending how fast you can talk and how quickly you can get people in the building" at the whims of a single person?
Not sure I like that.
The alternative is for the side with the most money to drag the trial out until they bankrupt the other side.
In addition, there's the problem of jury exhaustion. It is entirely plausible that a jury might better serve the interests of justice after 25 hours of testimony on each side rather than 1,000 hours of testimony that they will largely forget.
When properly applied, there's nothing wrong with it. There is, however, a question of whether Koh has been too heavy handed with her time limits - and the appeals court will have to decide that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes
This is a jury trial. I'm sure that Koh is perfectly competent with the legal issues, which is what she is there for.
This is a pre-jury trial. This has all been about settling to avoid a jury trial.
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
This is a pre-jury trial. This has all been about settling to avoid a jury trial.
Wait, so what was all that stuff about the jury selection process?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I was going to make a joke about hitting things, but I'm not as good at slapstick as I am other kinds of humor.
That's the funniest thing you have ever posted.
WRT the thread, I wish this judge was more Thurgood Marshall and less Judge Judy. I don't imagine that her jurist colleagues
appreciate the unprofessional image she projects with her crack smoking crack. When the litigants behave like children, she
should rise above rather than stooping to childishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM
She's a former patent lawyer. Patent law is a very unique part of the law, and most people who go into it have a technical background. This isn't like closing a real estate deal, or even trying a criminal case.
Exactly.
Intellectual property rights are the least valuable types of things to take to trial, so 2 weeks or 20 weeks, doesn't matter. Both parties were given chances to settle, and they didn't take it. So the Judge is fully within her right to give a time limit to limit the "cruel and unusual punishment" to the Jury. Nobody in the world except the plaintiff is going to be inconvenienced while infringing products are on the market.
It's not like a criminal trial where someone caused the death of someone else and not letting all the evidence or witnesses in would change the outcome of the trial. In criminal law, loser either goes to jail or nothing happens and some lawyers get rich. In civil law, loser-pays, some employees get fired, and the lawyers get rich, no jailtime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Samsung lawyer literally begging the Judge to include evidence that had been reviewed three times earlier and was denied. "Quinn kicked off the day with an impassioned plea to allow the evidence, saying he had never begged a court for anything throughout a more than 30-year legal career but was begging now. Koh was unmoved, saying the court had reviewed the issue at least three times and denied Samsung's request." Then, afterwards, Samsung released the evidence in question anyway, which was a deposition in which an Apple designer says he was told to "create a phone inspired by Sony's designs.
http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/10831/20120816/apple-vs-samsung-patent-trial-end-already.htm
Judge Says NO To Testimony From Samsung Designer
http://galaxystocks.com/24615/business-news/judge-says-no-to-testimony-from-samsung-designer-aapl/
Judge bars Samsung designer from testifying in Apple trial
Read more: http://www.itproportal.com/2012/08/13/judge-bars-samsung-designer-from-testifying-in-apple-trial/#ixzz23SuNRUQM
Key Samsung designer barred from testifying in Apple case
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491835-37/key-samsung-designer-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/
Honestly, it probably is already over, because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
Judge doesn't sanction Samsung over having an unregistered lawyer participate in the trial, despite a specific rule disallowing this for this case.
Obvious bias toward Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right, okay, why is this thing timed? Is there any legitimate reason?
Yes, because queued up behind Apple and Samsung, there are others waiting for court time.