Their mission?: "The FIJA mission is to educate Americans regarding their full powers as jurors, including their ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant."
Read the last half of this article where the lawyers for the plaintiff got (paid) some Stanford Economic expert to testify how Apple obtain their monoploy and used it to keep the prices of iPods high. He may be an economics expert but has no idea how iTunes and an iPod works.
There's no such thing as an economics expert anymore, especially someone from Stanford. "Normal" economics went out the window years ago. Some things are constant, like 1+1=2, but nothing is normal anymore with economics. Supply and demand is a joke. And of course, you can find anyone who will say what you want them to say (or judge for that matter) for a price.
There's no such thing as an economics expert anymore, especially someone from Stanford. "Normal" economics went out the window years ago. Some things are constant, like 1+1=2, but nothing is normal anymore with economics. Supply and demand is a joke. And of course, you can find anyone who will say what you want them to say (or judge for that matter) for a price.
There's a reason why economics is known as "the dismal science" (per Thomas Carlyle).
I've said this before and I'll say it again: judges like Gonzales, Koh, and Cote are making the term "US Justice System" an oxymoron.
What a shame.
You're not being fair to lump them together, AND YOU KNOW IT.
It's obvious Cote was biased, and would have done anything the Department of Justice asked her to. Koh was not out of line in her rulings - she was tough, but there was justification for everything she did. Gonzales Rogers likewise has done nothing to show any bias - she's giving both sides a fair chance in the case. She's made rulings limiting the issues and evidence plaintiffs can use, and it looks like she'll run the court in an orderly and competent fashion (as opposed to Judge Cote). The fact she's allowing the case to proceed does not mean she's anti-Apple. Not at all.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: judges like Gonzales, Koh, and Cote are making the term "US Justice System" an oxymoron.
What a shame.
You're not being fair to lump them together, AND YOU KNOW IT.
It's obvious Cote was biased, and would have done anything the Department of Justice asked her to. Koh was not out of line in her rulings - she was tough, but there was justification for everything she did. Gonzales Rogers likewise has done nothing to show any bias - she's giving both sides a fair chance in the case. She's made rulings limiting the issues and evidence plaintiffs can use, and it looks like she'll run the court in an orderly and competent fashion (as opposed to Judge Cote). The fact she's allowing the case to proceed does not mean she's anti-Apple. Not at all.
Stop hyperventilating. I said -- or remotely implied -- nothing anywhere about anyone being anti-Apple.
I am just sick and tired of the ridiculously ponderous pace of the U.S. Justice 'system', especially in relation to the tech industry. In an industry where product life cycles are measured in months or years, the courts seem to take years or decades. That is simply shameful. Add to it the endless delaying tactics and appeals by lawyers padding their fees -- often with the full support of judges (what that heck does Gonzales mean when she says her decision is 'appealable'?) -- the general lack of tech or economics knowledge of these judges, their apparent lack of understanding of corporate decision-making, or the opportunity cost of jurors' and witnesses' time, and you'll begin to get a sense of what I am taking about.
Stop hyperventilating. I said -- or remotely implied -- nothing anywhere about anyone being anti-Apple.
I am just sick and tired of the ridiculously ponderous pace of the U.S. Justice 'system', especially in relation to the tech industry. In an industry where product life cycles are measured in months or years, the courts seem to take years or decades. That is simply shameful. Add to it the endless delaying tactics and appeals by lawyers padding their fees -- often with the full support of judges (what that heck does Gonzales mean when she says her decision is 'appealable'?) -- the general lack of tech or economics knowledge of these judges, their apparent lack of understanding of corporate decision-making, or the opportunity cost of jurors' and witnesses' time, and you'll begin to get a sense of what I am taking about.
Judge Gonzales just handed Apple a "Get out of jail for free" card by allowing the lawyers to name another plainiff to represent the case rather than toss the case out now. That's what she meant when she stated that this case is now "appealable". Apple can't lose. If the case goes against them, they still have a very good chance of getting it thrown out on appeal. Or course the lawyers can also appeal if Apple wins, but may not have any chance of winning one. They can't win an appeal based of something that went in their favor. (At least I would think.)
And I think Judge Gonzales knows that Apple has a good case and would rather have it end with this trial and not waste any more time and money with another one. Which would happen if she threw out the case now. It's the same reason why Apple would rather go forward. But juries are unpredictable. So far, Judge Gonzales hasn't really done anything to hurt Apple chance of winning this case. Hopefully I won't have to change my mind when its Apple's turn to take the stand.
Comments
http://fija.org
Their mission?: "The FIJA mission is to educate Americans regarding their full powers as jurors, including their ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant."
Read the last half of this article where the lawyers for the plaintiff got (paid) some Stanford Economic expert to testify how Apple obtain their monoploy and used it to keep the prices of iPods high. He may be an economics expert but has no idea how iTunes and an iPod works.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27094683/plaintiffs-press-ipod-trial-though-lead-plaintiff-may
There's no such thing as an economics expert anymore, especially someone from Stanford. "Normal" economics went out the window years ago. Some things are constant, like 1+1=2, but nothing is normal anymore with economics. Supply and demand is a joke. And of course, you can find anyone who will say what you want them to say (or judge for that matter) for a price.
There's a reason why economics is known as "the dismal science" (per Thomas Carlyle).
I've said this before and I'll say it again: judges like Gonzales, Koh, and Cote are making the term "US Justice System" an oxymoron.
What a shame.
You're not being fair to lump them together, AND YOU KNOW IT.
It's obvious Cote was biased, and would have done anything the Department of Justice asked her to. Koh was not out of line in her rulings - she was tough, but there was justification for everything she did. Gonzales Rogers likewise has done nothing to show any bias - she's giving both sides a fair chance in the case. She's made rulings limiting the issues and evidence plaintiffs can use, and it looks like she'll run the court in an orderly and competent fashion (as opposed to Judge Cote). The fact she's allowing the case to proceed does not mean she's anti-Apple. Not at all.
Stop hyperventilating. I said -- or remotely implied -- nothing anywhere about anyone being anti-Apple.
I am just sick and tired of the ridiculously ponderous pace of the U.S. Justice 'system', especially in relation to the tech industry. In an industry where product life cycles are measured in months or years, the courts seem to take years or decades. That is simply shameful. Add to it the endless delaying tactics and appeals by lawyers padding their fees -- often with the full support of judges (what that heck does Gonzales mean when she says her decision is 'appealable'?) -- the general lack of tech or economics knowledge of these judges, their apparent lack of understanding of corporate decision-making, or the opportunity cost of jurors' and witnesses' time, and you'll begin to get a sense of what I am taking about.
Stop hyperventilating. I said -- or remotely implied -- nothing anywhere about anyone being anti-Apple.
I am just sick and tired of the ridiculously ponderous pace of the U.S. Justice 'system', especially in relation to the tech industry. In an industry where product life cycles are measured in months or years, the courts seem to take years or decades. That is simply shameful. Add to it the endless delaying tactics and appeals by lawyers padding their fees -- often with the full support of judges (what that heck does Gonzales mean when she says her decision is 'appealable'?) -- the general lack of tech or economics knowledge of these judges, their apparent lack of understanding of corporate decision-making, or the opportunity cost of jurors' and witnesses' time, and you'll begin to get a sense of what I am taking about.
Judge Gonzales just handed Apple a "Get out of jail for free" card by allowing the lawyers to name another plainiff to represent the case rather than toss the case out now. That's what she meant when she stated that this case is now "appealable". Apple can't lose. If the case goes against them, they still have a very good chance of getting it thrown out on appeal. Or course the lawyers can also appeal if Apple wins, but may not have any chance of winning one. They can't win an appeal based of something that went in their favor. (At least I would think.)
And I think Judge Gonzales knows that Apple has a good case and would rather have it end with this trial and not waste any more time and money with another one. Which would happen if she threw out the case now. It's the same reason why Apple would rather go forward. But juries are unpredictable. So far, Judge Gonzales hasn't really done anything to hurt Apple chance of winning this case. Hopefully I won't have to change my mind when its Apple's turn to take the stand.