Hilarious observation in the NYT piece re: the trial this afternoon:
Quote:
Throughout the testimony, Apple’s presentation of e-mails and evidence was notably smooth compared with the government’s. Both parties showed their evidence on a projector screen. A member of Apple’s legal team was using a MacBook to artfully shuffle between evidence documents, stacking them side by side in split screens and zooming in on specific paragraphs when needed.
In contrast, the Justice Department’s lawyers could show only one piece of evidence at a time on the screen. One video that Mr. Buterman played as evidence failed to produce the audio commentary needed to make his point. Judge Denise L. Cote of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York provided some comic relief when she asked whether the government lawyers were using a Mac. The Justice Department said it was a Hewlett-Packard computer.
You've read enough TS posts to know he wouldn't look at it as an insult. Whoever it is is taunting the ad mins/mods, making sure they know he can make them miserable. Don't know of another ban that matches the timing for this guy showing up.
Baloney. Her statement was "I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that."
That is a very clear statement of her position. She believed that Apple was guilty before the trial began and believed that the government would be able to prove that guilt.
The only ones mis-interpreting her statement are the paid shills.
Maybe it would help you to read the Reuters story, which presents it more in context, instead of just reading a blogger's report.
Highlights: 1.She was asked by the Justice Department lawyer to give her pre-trial thoughts - she called it a "tentative" view. 2."She emphasized that no final decision woud be made until after the trial takes place", and she said he hadn't read many of the submitted affadavits, she had basically only read some of the evidence (emails, etc.), mostly submitted by the Justice Department.
Then, on the first day of the trial, she reiterated to Apple's lawyer that the case will be decided on the evidence that the lawyers present in court, not on anything presented pre-trial.
Again, her statement may be unusual, but it means nothing to the outcome of the case. She will decide on the evidence presented (and cross-examined) in court, and on the law.
I don't know why people can't grasp this issue. Maybe it's because she's not explaining how courts work to the bloggers and the public. Would it be better if her language were slightly different, and instead of saying "I believe that the government will be able to show..." , she said "it appears the government will be able to show..."? Then would you understand?
You've read enough TS posts to know he wouldn't look at it as an insult. Whoever it is is taunting the ad mins/mods, making sure they know he can make them miserable. Don't know of another ban that matches the timing for this guy showing up.
Really? I can think of several drive-by trolls who have appeared since WWDC who were very prolifics until they got banned. And two of them (that I saw) had similar posting styles. I haven't even been on AI much the last couple weeks and even I can come up with two.
Forgot to add. There was even that idiot who copied TS's name by changing one letter. That makes 3 recent ones I know about.
That's a pre-trial statement that she was asked to give. It's a moment in time with no legal consequences, and no bearing on the actual trial. It seems contradictory or confusing, but it is what it is, which is basically nothing.
It's not unlike a pre-trial hearing in which the judge rules that there is enough evidence to hold someone for trial. It may be worded differently, but it's more or less the same. It carries no legal weight, it means absolutely nothing in regards to her "bias." Another example is in cases where the defense submits a "motion to dismiss" on the grounds that the government didn't prove its case, and the judge rejects the motion. That also has no bearing on whether the defendant is ultimately convicted - many times they are still acquitted, because of the evidence subsequently presented.
There are a lot of ins and outs in criminal proceedings.
One would expect an impartial judge to answer such a question along the lines of "At this stage I have no comment to make until the facts have been presented", which is far more professional than the pronouncement of guilt this moron made.
btw it's a civil case, the DoJ would not even get in the door with a criminal case.
One would expect an impartial judge to answer such a question along the lines of "At this stage I have no comment to make until the facts have been presented", which is far more professional than the pronouncement of guilt this moron made.
Really? I can think of several drive-by trolls who have appeared since WWDC who were very prolifics until they got banned. And two of them (that I saw) had similar posting styles. I haven't even been on AI much the last couple weeks and even I can come up with two.
Forgot to add. There was even that idiot who copied TS's name by changing one letter. That makes 3 recent ones I know about.
TS is still an obtuse piece of flotsam. He doesn't even have the brains to figure it out.
Gratis advice. Make a script where new peeps have to verify their email before posting. Not hard. Still ways around it but a start for the brilliant apple engineers.
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that she clearly demonstrated her bias before the trial.
Exactly.
If she did anything out of sorts, she would be disciplined and removed from the bench.
You just keep pushing an invalid point. She said it was a "tentative" read of part of the evidence, and the case will be decided on the evidence presented in court. She said she believes the DOJ will be able to show Apple conspired... That doesn't mean the DOJ has shown it already - that has to be done in court. You are really dense today.
One would expect an impartial judge to answer such a question along the lines of "At this stage I have no comment to make until the facts have been presented", which is far more professional than the pronouncement of guilt this moron made.
Ridiculous. Read the Reuters story referenced above, and try to understand something about court cases.
To give you another example, Judge Lucy Koh in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial (the new one), said in pre-trial that "Apple has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits at trial in its claims that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus infringes claims 18, 19, and 27 of the '172 Patent." That's a statement of what the preliminary evidence looks like - it doesn't mean that it will necessarily turn out that way. Would you accuse Judge Koh of being biased against Samsung? It sure didn't look that way during the first patent trial that she presided over (she overturned part of the jury verdict, and reduced the damages awarded to Apple).
Learn how courts work, please. There was no "pronouncement of guilt", and calling the judge names is pretty infantile.
The DOJ seems to be making too much of "Apple's effect on the e-book market", as if any effect at all would somehow indicate proof of collusion?
It's true that the overall prices of e-books increased a bit after iBooks came online. However, I think it was less a case of Apple "causing" an increase through collusion, and more a case of the new model removing the effects of artificially low prices due to Amazon's fixed lowball pricing.
Ridiculous. Read the Reuters story referenced above, and try to understand something about court cases.
To give you another example, Judge Lucy Koh in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial (the new one), said in pre-trial that "Apple has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits at trial in its claims that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus infringes claims 18, 19, and 27 of the '172 Patent." That's a statement of what the preliminary evidence looks like - it doesn't mean that it will necessarily turn out that way. Would you accuse Judge Koh of being biased against Samsung? It sure didn't look that way during the first patent trial that she presided over (she overturned part of the jury verdict, and reduced the damages awarded to Apple).
Learn how courts work, please. There was no "pronouncement of guilt", and calling the judge names is pretty infantile.
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that."
I believe Judge Denise Cote is a moron.
I believe her statement will provide more than enough grounds to appeal for a mistrial to the Supreme Court.
I believe Supreme Court Judges will not be so gullible when it comes to the DoJ's, largely circumstantial "evidence".
Comments
Report and move on, I say.
Hilarious observation in the NYT piece re: the trial this afternoon:
Quote:
Throughout the testimony, Apple’s presentation of e-mails and evidence was notably smooth compared with the government’s. Both parties showed their evidence on a projector screen. A member of Apple’s legal team was using a MacBook to artfully shuffle between evidence documents, stacking them side by side in split screens and zooming in on specific paragraphs when needed.
In contrast, the Justice Department’s lawyers could show only one piece of evidence at a time on the screen. One video that Mr. Buterman played as evidence failed to produce the audio commentary needed to make his point. Judge Denise L. Cote of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York provided some comic relief when she asked whether the government lawyers were using a Mac. The Justice Department said it was a Hewlett-Packard computer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/technology/apple-executive-defends-pricing-and-contracts-in-antitrust-case.html?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0
Oh, please DOJ, just a few more days of this free advertising...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I think that's TS. One account after another all day and part of yesterday ever since he was banned.
Confused, why would he insult himself?
TS banned? Considering all the trolls still present on AI I find that surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Baloney. Her statement was "I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that."
That is a very clear statement of her position. She believed that Apple was guilty before the trial began and believed that the government would be able to prove that guilt.
The only ones mis-interpreting her statement are the paid shills.
Maybe it would help you to read the Reuters story, which presents it more in context, instead of just reading a blogger's report.
Judge says leaning toward U.S. in Apple e-books case | Reuters
Highlights: 1.She was asked by the Justice Department lawyer to give her pre-trial thoughts - she called it a "tentative" view. 2."She emphasized that no final decision woud be made until after the trial takes place", and she said he hadn't read many of the submitted affadavits, she had basically only read some of the evidence (emails, etc.), mostly submitted by the Justice Department.
Then, on the first day of the trial, she reiterated to Apple's lawyer that the case will be decided on the evidence that the lawyers present in court, not on anything presented pre-trial.
Again, her statement may be unusual, but it means nothing to the outcome of the case. She will decide on the evidence presented (and cross-examined) in court, and on the law.
I don't know why people can't grasp this issue. Maybe it's because she's not explaining how courts work to the bloggers and the public. Would it be better if her language were slightly different, and instead of saying "I believe that the government will be able to show..." , she said "it appears the government will be able to show..."? Then would you understand?
Except that from everything I've read, DoJ has come up spectacularly short in offering "direct evidence."
A lot of 'Isn't it true/fact that%u2026' which their own witnesses couldn't collaborate when under oath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You've read enough TS posts to know he wouldn't look at it as an insult. Whoever it is is taunting the ad mins/mods, making sure they know he can make them miserable. Don't know of another ban that matches the timing for this guy showing up.
Really? I can think of several drive-by trolls who have appeared since WWDC who were very prolifics until they got banned. And two of them (that I saw) had similar posting styles. I haven't even been on AI much the last couple weeks and even I can come up with two.
Forgot to add. There was even that idiot who copied TS's name by changing one letter. That makes 3 recent ones I know about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
That's a pre-trial statement that she was asked to give. It's a moment in time with no legal consequences, and no bearing on the actual trial. It seems contradictory or confusing, but it is what it is, which is basically nothing.
It's not unlike a pre-trial hearing in which the judge rules that there is enough evidence to hold someone for trial. It may be worded differently, but it's more or less the same. It carries no legal weight, it means absolutely nothing in regards to her "bias." Another example is in cases where the defense submits a "motion to dismiss" on the grounds that the government didn't prove its case, and the judge rejects the motion. That also has no bearing on whether the defendant is ultimately convicted - many times they are still acquitted, because of the evidence subsequently presented.
There are a lot of ins and outs in criminal proceedings.
One would expect an impartial judge to answer such a question along the lines of "At this stage I have no comment to make until the facts have been presented", which is far more professional than the pronouncement of guilt this moron made.
btw it's a civil case, the DoJ would not even get in the door with a criminal case.
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that she clearly demonstrated her bias before the trial.
Exactly.
TS is still an obtuse piece of flotsam. He doesn't even have the brains to figure it out.
Gratis advice. Make a script where new peeps have to verify their email before posting. Not hard. Still ways around it but a start for the brilliant apple engineers.
See how you can slip in and out in a minute or so. Make it right and the BS stops.
I missed it, what all went down? I could have made popcorn or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that she clearly demonstrated her bias before the trial.
Exactly.
If she did anything out of sorts, she would be disciplined and removed from the bench.
You just keep pushing an invalid point. She said it was a "tentative" read of part of the evidence, and the case will be decided on the evidence presented in court. She said she believes the DOJ will be able to show Apple conspired... That doesn't mean the DOJ has shown it already - that has to be done in court. You are really dense today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
One would expect an impartial judge to answer such a question along the lines of "At this stage I have no comment to make until the facts have been presented", which is far more professional than the pronouncement of guilt this moron made.
Ridiculous. Read the Reuters story referenced above, and try to understand something about court cases.
To give you another example, Judge Lucy Koh in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial (the new one), said in pre-trial that "Apple has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits at trial in its claims that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus infringes claims 18, 19, and 27 of the '172 Patent." That's a statement of what the preliminary evidence looks like - it doesn't mean that it will necessarily turn out that way. Would you accuse Judge Koh of being biased against Samsung? It sure didn't look that way during the first patent trial that she presided over (she overturned part of the jury verdict, and reduced the damages awarded to Apple).
Learn how courts work, please. There was no "pronouncement of guilt", and calling the judge names is pretty infantile.
It's true that the overall prices of e-books increased a bit after iBooks came online. However, I think it was less a case of Apple "causing" an increase through collusion, and more a case of the new model removing the effects of artificially low prices due to Amazon's fixed lowball pricing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
Ridiculous. Read the Reuters story referenced above, and try to understand something about court cases.
To give you another example, Judge Lucy Koh in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial (the new one), said in pre-trial that "Apple has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits at trial in its claims that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus infringes claims 18, 19, and 27 of the '172 Patent." That's a statement of what the preliminary evidence looks like - it doesn't mean that it will necessarily turn out that way. Would you accuse Judge Koh of being biased against Samsung? It sure didn't look that way during the first patent trial that she presided over (she overturned part of the jury verdict, and reduced the damages awarded to Apple).
Learn how courts work, please. There was no "pronouncement of guilt", and calling the judge names is pretty infantile.
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that."
I believe Judge Denise Cote is a moron.
I believe her statement will provide more than enough grounds to appeal for a mistrial to the Supreme Court.
I believe Supreme Court Judges will not be so gullible when it comes to the DoJ's, largely circumstantial "evidence".