That's California, think Texas instead. Both Spain and later Mexico encouraged colonization of what is now Texas as a buffer from American expansion. While many empresarios brought European and American colonies, there was significant Mexican emmigration as well and they received preferential treatment in land grants.
I was told that in practice, areas between Mojave Dessert and San Antonio are now Mexico, according to local population makeups, economy, environments and lifestyle. Is that true?
Then again, Mexicans never really leave despite Texas Annexation, and borders mean nothing from then and even today. Only people complains are Northeastern snowbirds.
If Apple loses, this is plenty of grounds for appeal.
Samsung failed to show any relevance or a single example of destroyed evidence. Apple showed plenty of examples of where evidence that was destroyed would have been relevant.
Not that I've read about. The only thing I saw was Apple convinced that some evidence wasn't retained. I never saw Apple pointing to something specific that was advantageous to their case, but destroyed. If you've got a link that shows otherwise, please post it.
I'm sure you'd at least admit that Apple was in an even better position than Samsung to know when a lawsuit was likely, and should have been keeping all relevant emails or other internal correspondence at least as early as the court expected Samsung to. Judge Grewel never ruled on that basis, simply dismissing Samsung's motion as untimely.
If Apple loses, this is plenty of grounds for appeal.
Samsung failed to show any relevance or a single example of destroyed evidence. Apple showed plenty of examples of where evidence that was destroyed would have been relevant.
Not that I've read about. The only thing I saw was Apple convinced that some evidence wasn't retained. I never saw Apple pointing to something specific that was advantageous to their case, but destroyed. If you've got a link that shows otherwise, please post it.
I'm sure you'd at least admit that Apple was in an even better position than Samsung to know when a lawsuit was likely, and should have been keeping all relevant emails or other internal correspondence at least as early as the court expected Samsung to. Judge Grewel never ruled on that basis, simply dismissing Samsung's motion as untimely.
I don't think you are painting an accurate picture here. The adverse inference instruction against Samsung arose because of their automatic email deletion policy that they did nothing to change even after litigation was known to be coming. Apple argued that by extrapolation from evidence that was obtained, the destroyed evidence would most likely have been relevant.
In contrast, the adverse inference instruction against Apple is because Samsung successfully argued that Apple had failed to issue a retention instruction to employees relating to this specific case, not that there was any indication that they had deleted emails or destroyed evidence.
For those two situations to have been treated the same seems a real stretch, and maybe an over-enthusiastic move by the Judge to remove any hint that she might not be treating the two parties equally.
I don't think you are painting an accurate picture here. The adverse inference instruction against Samsung arose because of their automatic email deletion policy that they did nothing to change even after litigation was known to be coming. Apple argued that by extrapolation from evidence that was obtained, the destroyed evidence would most likely have been relevant.
In contrast, the adverse inference instruction against Apple is because Samsung successfully argued that Apple had failed to issue a retention instruction to employees relating to this specific case, not that there was any indication that they had deleted emails or destroyed evidence.
For those two situations to have been treated the same seems a real stretch, and maybe an over-enthusiastic move by the Judge to remove any hint that she might not be treating the two parties equally.
I believe Samsung presented indications that the number and source of emails that Apple submitted as evidence from the period preceding the lawsuit was too low for them all to have been kept. In general the same "smoking gun" type of proof that some communications at Apple hadn't been properly retained as they should have.
I don't think you are painting an accurate picture here. The adverse inference instruction against Samsung arose because of their automatic email deletion policy that they did nothing to change even after litigation was known to be coming. Apple argued that by extrapolation from evidence that was obtained, the destroyed evidence would most likely have been relevant.
In contrast, the adverse inference instruction against Apple is because Samsung successfully argued that Apple had failed to issue a retention instruction to employees relating to this specific case, not that there was any indication that they had deleted emails or destroyed evidence.
For those two situations to have been treated the same seems a real stretch, and maybe an over-enthusiastic move by the Judge to remove any hint that she might not be treating the two parties equally.
There are other factors that you didn't mention. In particular, Apple already had its email retention policy in place because of its lawsuits with other companies, so they were already retaining emails and documents. The only issue is that they didn't specifically tell employees to retain emails because of Samsung. But since they were already retaining emails because of Motorola, HTC, Google, etc, that's a moot point.
In addition, Apple had specifically requested documents that Samsung claims were deleted. It is therefore clear that Samsung had deleted relevant documents. The converse is not true.
"In response to Samsung's accusations about destroying evidence, Apple trumpeted the fact that unlike Samsung, it does not implement any automatic e-mail deletion systems. Employees are allowed to preserve e-mails any way they wish and when it becomes clear that Apple may be party to a lawsuit, managers send out notices to those involved to preserve e-mails. Apple does, however, employ an e-mail system that reminds employees to keep their e-mail accounts below certain limits.
Samsung told the judge that regardless of what kind of e-mail system one employs, the duty to preserve is the same.
"The question for the Court is not whether records were destroyed pursuant to an 'automatic e-mail deletion system,'" Samsung wrote. "It is whether they were destroyed when there was an obligation to preserve them, period."
Samsung argues that the court has held it responsible for preserving e-mails a full 8 months before Apple acknowledges it issued its first litigation hold on e-mails related to the case. Apple began preserving e-mails only after it filed the lawsuit against Samsung in April 2011.
"Why was August 2010 the right date triggering Samsung's obligation to preserve documents while the right date for Apple was not until April 2011?" Samsung asks in its filing.
Does anyone see any obvious fallacies in Samsung's argument?
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">"In response to Samsung's accusations about destroying evidence, Apple trumpeted the fact that unlike Samsung, it does not implement any automatic e-mail deletion systems. Employees are allowed to preserve e-mails any way they wish and when it becomes clear that Apple may be party to a lawsuit, managers send out notices to those involved to preserve e-mails. Apple does, however, employ an e-mail system that reminds employees to keep their e-mail accounts below certain limits.</p>
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">Samsung told the judge that regardless of what kind of e-mail system one employs, the duty to preserve is the same.</p>
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">"The question for the Court is not whether records were destroyed pursuant to an 'automatic e-mail deletion system,'" Samsung wrote. "It is whether they were destroyed when there was an obligation to preserve them, period."</p>
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">Samsung argues that the court has held it responsible for preserving e-mails a full 8 months before Apple acknowledges it issued its first litigation hold on e-mails related to the case. Apple began preserving e-mails only after it filed the lawsuit against Samsung in April 2011.</p>
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">"Why was August 2010 the right date triggering Samsung's obligation to preserve documents while the right date for Apple was not until April 2011?" Samsung asks in its filing.</p>
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">Does anyone see any obvious fallacies in Samsung's argument?</p>
If the implication is that you don't, then I'm disappointed. In one case, Samsung, by its own admission, continued to delete emails and thus destroyed material that Apple successfully argued by extrapolation would have been relevant to the case. Samsung, now backed into a corner, tried to copy the approach and argued that Apple might have deleted some emails, based on the lack of a specific retention policy and an attempt to presume that there must have been more emails than were entered into evidence and that those assumed missing emails might have been helpful to Samsung (which is begging the question).
I don't think you are painting an accurate picture here. The adverse inference instruction against Samsung arose because of their automatic email deletion policy that they did nothing to change even after litigation was known to be coming. Apple argued that by extrapolation from evidence that was obtained, the destroyed evidence would most likely have been relevant.
In contrast, the adverse inference instruction against Apple is because Samsung successfully argued that Apple had failed to issue a retention instruction to employees relating to this specific case, not that there was any indication that they had deleted emails or destroyed evidence.
For those two situations to have been treated the same seems a real stretch, and maybe an over-enthusiastic move by the Judge to remove any hint that she might not be treating the two parties equally.
There are other factors that you didn't mention. In particular, Apple already had its email retention policy in place because of its lawsuits with other companies, so they were already retaining emails and documents. The only issue is that they didn't specifically tell employees to retain emails because of Samsung. But since they were already retaining emails because of Motorola, HTC, Google, etc, that's a moot point.
In addition, Apple had specifically requested documents that Samsung claims were deleted. It is therefore clear that Samsung had deleted relevant documents. The converse is not true.
I was just trying to restrict my comments to the arguments made, but I agree with the additional observations and conclusions.
If the implication is that you don't, then I'm disappointed. In one case, Samsung, by its own admission, continued to delete emails and thus destroyed material that Apple successfully argued by extrapolation would have been relevant to the case. Samsung, now backed into a corner, tried to copy the approach and argued that Apple might have deleted some emails, based on the lack of a specific retention policy and an attempt to presume that there must have been more emails than were entered into evidence and that those assumed missing emails might have been helpful to Samsung (which is begging the question).
You really don't see why those are different?
Neither Samsung or Apple accused the other of deleting emails after the lawsuit was filed. This has to do with communications from the period prior to the lawsuit.
I completely agree that Samsung's automatic deletion policy that applied to their home office communications likely resulted in some pertinent emails not properly retained. Samsung's argument is two-fold. They didn't believe that Apple was likely to be filing suit as early as October of 2010 and therefor did not believe they needed to override their email policy yet. Whether it was a valid excuse or not (and I don't personally think it was) the court felt they should have. So if that's the courts' opinion of an appropriate date, why was Apple, who was in a much better position to determine a lawsuit was going to happen, not held to the same requirement?
If the implication is that you don't, then I'm disappointed. In one case, Samsung, by its own admission, continued to delete emails and thus destroyed material that Apple successfully argued by extrapolation would have been relevant to the case. Samsung, now backed into a corner, tried to copy the approach and argued that Apple might have deleted some emails, based on the lack of a specific retention policy and an attempt to presume that there must have been more emails than were entered into evidence and that those assumed missing emails might have been helpful to Samsung (which is begging the question).
You really don't see why those are different?
Neither Samsung or Apple accused the other of deleting emails after the lawsuit was filed. This has to do with communications from the period prior to the lawsuit.
I completely agree that Samsung's automatic deletion policy that applied to their home office communications likely resulted in some pertinent emails not properly retained. Samsung's argument is two-fold. They didn't believe that Apple was likely to be filing suit as early as October of 2010 and therefor did not believe they needed to override their email policy yet. Whether it was a valid excuse or not (and I don't personally think it was) the court felt they should have. So if that's the courts' opinion of an appropriate date, why was Apple, who was in a much better position to determine a lawsuit was going to happen, not held to the same requirement?
No reason for them not to be, but you are focussing on the narrow question of simply whether the requirement was met, rather than the broader question of by how much the requirement was breached, and whether the breach was likely to be significant.
No reason for them not to be, but you are focussing on the narrow question of simply whether the requirement was met, rather than the broader question of by how much the requirement was breached, and whether the breach was likely to be significant.
Not at all. FWIW I don't agree that Apple and Samsung should be stung by identical adverse jury instructions. Samsung obviously failed if the court determines Oct/2010 to be realistic. At the same time i think it may be completely appropriate for the court to tell the jury that Apple may not have retained all relevant evidential emails either.
I won't be at all surprised to see Judge Koh modify the instructions a bit to Apple's benefit. I would be surprised to see her let Apple of the hook entirely.
No reason for them not to be, but you are focussing on the narrow question of simply whether the requirement was met, rather than the broader question of by how much the requirement was breached, and whether the breach was likely to be significant.
Not at all. FWIW I don't agree that Apple and Samsung should be stung by identical adverse jury instructions. Samsung obviously failed if the court determines Oct/2010 to be realistic. At the same time i think it may be completely appropriate for the court to tell the jury that Apple may not have retained all relevant evidential emails either.
I won't be at all surprised to see Judge Koh modify the instructions a bit to Apple's benefit. I would be surprised to see her let Apple of the hook entirely.
That's California, think Texas instead. Both Spain and later Mexico encouraged colonization of what is now Texas as a buffer from American expansion. While many empresarios brought European and American colonies, there was significant Mexican emmigration as well and they received preferential treatment in land grants.
Which does not really support your original premise that there were Spanish speaking communities years before English speakers arrived. Spanish speakers were very sparsely populated in those territories prior to becoming part of the US. English speakers and Spanish speakers were both in those areas at the same time although the Spanish speakers were not actual family communities but mostly soldiers, bandits and cowboys. I realize that is putting a rather fine point on it but my original comment was about communities. You were trying to be clever by switching the words around but it just wasn't factual.
Which does not really support your original premise that there were Spanish speaking communities years before English speakers arrived. Spanish speakers were very sparsely populated in those territories prior to becoming part of the US. English speakers and Spanish speakers were both in those areas at the same time although the Spanish speakers were not actual family communities but mostly soldiers, bandits and cowboys. I realize that is putting a rather fine point on it but my original comment was about communities. You were trying to be clever by switching the words around but it just wasn't factual.
My original premise was only meant to say that there have been some communities which have always been Spanish speaking, which I believe is true, and that this differs from immigrant communities which speak other languages. I was not trying to state an absolute as far as all Spanish speaking communities. I think we try to see things as either one way or the other, and in reality things are seldom that way. I apologize if I overstated my case, I did not mean to speak in absolutes. You can now have the last word if you would like.
My original premise was only meant to say that there have been some communities which have always been Spanish speaking, which I believe is true, and that this differs from immigrant communities which speak other languages. I was not trying to state an absolute as far as all Spanish speaking communities. I think we try to see things as either one way or the other, and in reality things are seldom that way. I apologize if I overstated my case, I did not mean to speak in absolutes. You can now have the last word if you would like.
Perhaps El Paso and similar border towns were originally Spanish speaking communities. The most unfortunate segregation was clearly the native Americans. Only recently due to proliferation of casinos are they beginning to integrate into American society. Kind of sad really. They gave up their traditional heritage only to become purveyors of vice.
They're only `fundamental' because Apple's implementation and success with them have made them seem fundamental.
I have to disagree with that. The elements over which they have chosen to sue Samsung for are, or rather should be, public domain. I have seen the design patent for the iPad and it strikes me as being much too broad.
Not at all. FWIW I don't agree that Apple and Samsung should be stung by identical adverse jury instructions. Samsung obviously failed if the court determines Oct/2010 to be realistic. At the same time i think it may be completely appropriate for the court to tell the jury that Apple may not have retained all relevant evidential emails either.
I won't be at all surprised to see Judge Koh modify the instructions a bit to Apple's benefit. I would be surprised to see her let Apple of the hook entirely.
So what was the courts final decision on adverse jury instructions? Neither Samsung or Apple will get a mention about possibly destroyed evidence.
There are other factors that you didn't mention. In particular, Apple already had its email retention policy in place because of its lawsuits with other companies, so they were already retaining emails and documents. The only issue is that they didn't specifically tell employees to retain emails because of Samsung. But since they were already retaining emails because of Motorola, HTC, Google, etc, that's a moot point.
In addition, Apple had specifically requested documents that Samsung claims were deleted. It is therefore clear that Samsung had deleted relevant documents. The converse is not true.
Not quite true. If Apple had reason to suspect a litigation, their lawyers had a duty to issue a preservation order specific to that case that would supersede any other retention schedule or email management program. The scope of that preservation would also have to be defined in meet and confer sessions with the opposing council, as per the FRCP. It is not enough just to retain emails generally, as the scope of the preservation would also include all other forms of media, and the chance for inadvertant spoliation would exist. Responsive material would have to be identified, reviewed, preserved and produced.
In fact, the fact that they retain email can put them at more risk, as any email they were unable to produce would be at odds with their stated policy. In contrast, a policy that mandates a destruction schedule for non-record email gives you the protection to not have to produce, as long as you can prove your records management program is applied consistently.
Conversely, Samsung's failure to produce email could be defensible if their email management policy specifies a period of retention (even two-weeks). They would only be responsible for the production of material produced after they could reasonably be aware of the impending litigation, or material that would otherwise be retained as a record by their retention schedule. Now, the onus is on Samsung to prove they have a defensible records management policy that is consistently applied, and it is clear they have inconsistent implementation here, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the destruction of emails.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
That's California, think Texas instead. Both Spain and later Mexico encouraged colonization of what is now Texas as a buffer from American expansion. While many empresarios brought European and American colonies, there was significant Mexican emmigration as well and they received preferential treatment in land grants.
I was told that in practice, areas between Mojave Dessert and San Antonio are now Mexico, according to local population makeups, economy, environments and lifestyle. Is that true?
Then again, Mexicans never really leave despite Texas Annexation, and borders mean nothing from then and even today. Only people complains are Northeastern snowbirds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If Apple loses, this is plenty of grounds for appeal.
Samsung failed to show any relevance or a single example of destroyed evidence. Apple showed plenty of examples of where evidence that was destroyed would have been relevant.
Not that I've read about. The only thing I saw was Apple convinced that some evidence wasn't retained. I never saw Apple pointing to something specific that was advantageous to their case, but destroyed. If you've got a link that shows otherwise, please post it.
I'm sure you'd at least admit that Apple was in an even better position than Samsung to know when a lawsuit was likely, and should have been keeping all relevant emails or other internal correspondence at least as early as the court expected Samsung to. Judge Grewel never ruled on that basis, simply dismissing Samsung's motion as untimely.
I don't think you are painting an accurate picture here. The adverse inference instruction against Samsung arose because of their automatic email deletion policy that they did nothing to change even after litigation was known to be coming. Apple argued that by extrapolation from evidence that was obtained, the destroyed evidence would most likely have been relevant.
In contrast, the adverse inference instruction against Apple is because Samsung successfully argued that Apple had failed to issue a retention instruction to employees relating to this specific case, not that there was any indication that they had deleted emails or destroyed evidence.
For those two situations to have been treated the same seems a real stretch, and maybe an over-enthusiastic move by the Judge to remove any hint that she might not be treating the two parties equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I don't think you are painting an accurate picture here. The adverse inference instruction against Samsung arose because of their automatic email deletion policy that they did nothing to change even after litigation was known to be coming. Apple argued that by extrapolation from evidence that was obtained, the destroyed evidence would most likely have been relevant.
In contrast, the adverse inference instruction against Apple is because Samsung successfully argued that Apple had failed to issue a retention instruction to employees relating to this specific case, not that there was any indication that they had deleted emails or destroyed evidence.
For those two situations to have been treated the same seems a real stretch, and maybe an over-enthusiastic move by the Judge to remove any hint that she might not be treating the two parties equally.
I believe Samsung presented indications that the number and source of emails that Apple submitted as evidence from the period preceding the lawsuit was too low for them all to have been kept. In general the same "smoking gun" type of proof that some communications at Apple hadn't been properly retained as they should have.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57488289-37/payback-samsung-says-apple-destroyed-evidence/
There are other factors that you didn't mention. In particular, Apple already had its email retention policy in place because of its lawsuits with other companies, so they were already retaining emails and documents. The only issue is that they didn't specifically tell employees to retain emails because of Samsung. But since they were already retaining emails because of Motorola, HTC, Google, etc, that's a moot point.
In addition, Apple had specifically requested documents that Samsung claims were deleted. It is therefore clear that Samsung had deleted relevant documents. The converse is not true.
"In response to Samsung's accusations about destroying evidence, Apple trumpeted the fact that unlike Samsung, it does not implement any automatic e-mail deletion systems. Employees are allowed to preserve e-mails any way they wish and when it becomes clear that Apple may be party to a lawsuit, managers send out notices to those involved to preserve e-mails. Apple does, however, employ an e-mail system that reminds employees to keep their e-mail accounts below certain limits.
Samsung told the judge that regardless of what kind of e-mail system one employs, the duty to preserve is the same.
"The question for the Court is not whether records were destroyed pursuant to an 'automatic e-mail deletion system,'" Samsung wrote. "It is whether they were destroyed when there was an obligation to preserve them, period."
Samsung argues that the court has held it responsible for preserving e-mails a full 8 months before Apple acknowledges it issued its first litigation hold on e-mails related to the case. Apple began preserving e-mails only after it filed the lawsuit against Samsung in April 2011.
"Why was August 2010 the right date triggering Samsung's obligation to preserve documents while the right date for Apple was not until April 2011?" Samsung asks in its filing.
Does anyone see any obvious fallacies in Samsung's argument?
If the implication is that you don't, then I'm disappointed. In one case, Samsung, by its own admission, continued to delete emails and thus destroyed material that Apple successfully argued by extrapolation would have been relevant to the case. Samsung, now backed into a corner, tried to copy the approach and argued that Apple might have deleted some emails, based on the lack of a specific retention policy and an attempt to presume that there must have been more emails than were entered into evidence and that those assumed missing emails might have been helpful to Samsung (which is begging the question).
You really don't see why those are different?
I was just trying to restrict my comments to the arguments made, but I agree with the additional observations and conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
If the implication is that you don't, then I'm disappointed. In one case, Samsung, by its own admission, continued to delete emails and thus destroyed material that Apple successfully argued by extrapolation would have been relevant to the case. Samsung, now backed into a corner, tried to copy the approach and argued that Apple might have deleted some emails, based on the lack of a specific retention policy and an attempt to presume that there must have been more emails than were entered into evidence and that those assumed missing emails might have been helpful to Samsung (which is begging the question).
You really don't see why those are different?
Neither Samsung or Apple accused the other of deleting emails after the lawsuit was filed. This has to do with communications from the period prior to the lawsuit.
I completely agree that Samsung's automatic deletion policy that applied to their home office communications likely resulted in some pertinent emails not properly retained. Samsung's argument is two-fold. They didn't believe that Apple was likely to be filing suit as early as October of 2010 and therefor did not believe they needed to override their email policy yet. Whether it was a valid excuse or not (and I don't personally think it was) the court felt they should have. So if that's the courts' opinion of an appropriate date, why was Apple, who was in a much better position to determine a lawsuit was going to happen, not held to the same requirement?
No reason for them not to be, but you are focussing on the narrow question of simply whether the requirement was met, rather than the broader question of by how much the requirement was breached, and whether the breach was likely to be significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
No reason for them not to be, but you are focussing on the narrow question of simply whether the requirement was met, rather than the broader question of by how much the requirement was breached, and whether the breach was likely to be significant.
Not at all. FWIW I don't agree that Apple and Samsung should be stung by identical adverse jury instructions. Samsung obviously failed if the court determines Oct/2010 to be realistic. At the same time i think it may be completely appropriate for the court to tell the jury that Apple may not have retained all relevant evidential emails either.
I won't be at all surprised to see Judge Koh modify the instructions a bit to Apple's benefit. I would be surprised to see her let Apple of the hook entirely.
That I agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
That's California, think Texas instead. Both Spain and later Mexico encouraged colonization of what is now Texas as a buffer from American expansion. While many empresarios brought European and American colonies, there was significant Mexican emmigration as well and they received preferential treatment in land grants.
Which does not really support your original premise that there were Spanish speaking communities years before English speakers arrived. Spanish speakers were very sparsely populated in those territories prior to becoming part of the US. English speakers and Spanish speakers were both in those areas at the same time although the Spanish speakers were not actual family communities but mostly soldiers, bandits and cowboys. I realize that is putting a rather fine point on it but my original comment was about communities. You were trying to be clever by switching the words around but it just wasn't factual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Which does not really support your original premise that there were Spanish speaking communities years before English speakers arrived. Spanish speakers were very sparsely populated in those territories prior to becoming part of the US. English speakers and Spanish speakers were both in those areas at the same time although the Spanish speakers were not actual family communities but mostly soldiers, bandits and cowboys. I realize that is putting a rather fine point on it but my original comment was about communities. You were trying to be clever by switching the words around but it just wasn't factual.
My original premise was only meant to say that there have been some communities which have always been Spanish speaking, which I believe is true, and that this differs from immigrant communities which speak other languages. I was not trying to state an absolute as far as all Spanish speaking communities. I think we try to see things as either one way or the other, and in reality things are seldom that way. I apologize if I overstated my case, I did not mean to speak in absolutes. You can now have the last word if you would like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
My original premise was only meant to say that there have been some communities which have always been Spanish speaking, which I believe is true, and that this differs from immigrant communities which speak other languages. I was not trying to state an absolute as far as all Spanish speaking communities. I think we try to see things as either one way or the other, and in reality things are seldom that way. I apologize if I overstated my case, I did not mean to speak in absolutes. You can now have the last word if you would like.
Perhaps El Paso and similar border towns were originally Spanish speaking communities. The most unfortunate segregation was clearly the native Americans. Only recently due to proliferation of casinos are they beginning to integrate into American society. Kind of sad really. They gave up their traditional heritage only to become purveyors of vice.
I have to disagree with that. The elements over which they have chosen to sue Samsung for are, or rather should be, public domain. I have seen the design patent for the iPad and it strikes me as being much too broad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not at all. FWIW I don't agree that Apple and Samsung should be stung by identical adverse jury instructions. Samsung obviously failed if the court determines Oct/2010 to be realistic. At the same time i think it may be completely appropriate for the court to tell the jury that Apple may not have retained all relevant evidential emails either.
I won't be at all surprised to see Judge Koh modify the instructions a bit to Apple's benefit. I would be surprised to see her let Apple of the hook entirely.
So what was the courts final decision on adverse jury instructions? Neither Samsung or Apple will get a mention about possibly destroyed evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There are other factors that you didn't mention. In particular, Apple already had its email retention policy in place because of its lawsuits with other companies, so they were already retaining emails and documents. The only issue is that they didn't specifically tell employees to retain emails because of Samsung. But since they were already retaining emails because of Motorola, HTC, Google, etc, that's a moot point.
In addition, Apple had specifically requested documents that Samsung claims were deleted. It is therefore clear that Samsung had deleted relevant documents. The converse is not true.
Not quite true. If Apple had reason to suspect a litigation, their lawyers had a duty to issue a preservation order specific to that case that would supersede any other retention schedule or email management program. The scope of that preservation would also have to be defined in meet and confer sessions with the opposing council, as per the FRCP. It is not enough just to retain emails generally, as the scope of the preservation would also include all other forms of media, and the chance for inadvertant spoliation would exist. Responsive material would have to be identified, reviewed, preserved and produced.
In fact, the fact that they retain email can put them at more risk, as any email they were unable to produce would be at odds with their stated policy. In contrast, a policy that mandates a destruction schedule for non-record email gives you the protection to not have to produce, as long as you can prove your records management program is applied consistently.
Conversely, Samsung's failure to produce email could be defensible if their email management policy specifies a period of retention (even two-weeks). They would only be responsible for the production of material produced after they could reasonably be aware of the impending litigation, or material that would otherwise be retained as a record by their retention schedule. Now, the onus is on Samsung to prove they have a defensible records management policy that is consistently applied, and it is clear they have inconsistent implementation here, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the destruction of emails.
iPhone Case Review
I am fairly new to the iPhone and its cases, but I have found the Body Glove case to be a solid case that basically "fits like a glove"!
Check out their cases and let me know what you think! Thanks!
www.bodyglovemobile.com