I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The Fifth Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
Weasels Think Different.
So there are these two lawyers talking and a pretty girl walks by. "Boy," said the first lawyer, I'd like to f**k her." The second lawyer responded, "Out of what?"
So there are these two lawyers talking and a pretty girl walks by. "Boy," said the first lawyer, I'd like to f**k her." The second lawyer responded, "Out of what?"
Samsung is playing dirty because they know they're going to lose.
If this was a murder trial with a Black defendant they'd be playing the race card. If it was a rape trial they'd be bringing up the woman's past or how she dresses to make it seem like she asked for it.
And to all the "legal experts" who say they did nothing wrong, answer me this simple question: Why did Judge Koh get so upset over this happening? Surely she's the one who knows better than anyone what should and shouldn't be released? I think I'll take her side over the people taking her words out of context to try and spin it to mean something else.
I'd like to see this too. Given the lawyer's declaration, I fear it would raise Fifth Amendment issues. That might play well in the appeal courts no?
Well aren't you the legal genius.... These unethical, immoral liars didn't just release the banned (and misleading) "evidence", they declared that it, and it alone, absolved them of any and all responsibility for stealing Apple's IP. It just shows what a bunch of scumbags they really are. There is no doubt, their intent is to poison the jury regardless of their superficial self righteousness and indignation.
And to all the "legal experts" who say they did nothing wrong, answer me this simple question: Why did Judge Koh get so upset over this happening? Surely she's the one who knows better than anyone what should and shouldn't be released? I think I'll take her side over the people taking her words out of context to try and spin it to mean something else.
And what is her side? Oh that's right, we don't know what she can or will do. Until then we ought to construct our beliefs in proportion to the evidence at hand. Apple's claiming Samsung is trying to tamper with the jury. Samsung explained there is no way to tamper with the jury since the jury was instructed not to follow any media related to this case. So unless the jury is not fulfilling its function/duty, which is not a reasonable assumption of law abiding citizens, there can be no jury tampering in principle. Sounds like one side gave an argument and the other did not. I'll let you decide which is which.
Well aren't you the legal genius.... These unethical, immoral liars didn't just release the banned (and misleading) "evidence", they declared that it, and it alone, absolved them of any and all responsibility for stealing Apple's IP. It just shows what a bunch of scumbags they really are. There is no doubt, their intent is to poison the jury regardless of their superficial self righteousness and indignation.
I'm sorry but doesn't free speech entitle you to share your opinion when it is asked of you? I think it is quite clear who are the superficially self-righteous in all this. You begin by assuming the worst of other's actions, I take their word for it, and if that word doesn't work with the facts, then I question it, but until then I believe in innocence until proven guilty. Your happy to hang Samsung regardless of their defense.
And what is her side? Oh that's right, we don't know what she can or will do. Until then we ought to construct our beliefs in proportion to the evidence at hand.
Oh the irony. We don't know. Well, everyone except for you, who seems to know exactly what's going on.
If this was a non-issue, Koh could have simply said "Mr. Quinn, in the future please refrain from making press releases regarding this case....." and that would be the end of it.
But she didn't. She was visibly upset (people in the court used the word "livid" to describe her state of mind) and demanded to know the names of all involved. There would be no need to make such a request if she wasn't considering some form of action.
This is the only "evidence" we have so far - Koh's response to hearing about this. A letter from Quinn means nothing. Of course they're going to say they were in the right. Do you expect them to make any statement that wasn't 110% in favor of what they did? Do you expect them to include in their statement anything Koh might have said that could hint they did something wrong?
Oh the irony. We don't know. Well, everyone except for you, who seems to know exactly what's going on.
If this was a non-issue, Koh could have simply said "Mr. Quinn, in the future please refrain from making press releases regarding this case....." and that would be the end of it.
But she didn't. She was visibly upset (people in the court used the word "livid" to describe her state of mind) and demanded to know the names of all involved. There would be no need to make such a request if she wasn't considering some form of action.
This is the only "evidence" we have so far - Koh's response to hearing about this. A letter from Quinn means nothing. Of course they're going to say they were in the right. Do you expect them to make any statement that wasn't 110% in favor of what they did? Do you expect them to include in their statement anything Koh might have said that could hint they did something wrong?
Oh, it's clear Koh is annoyed by this. She told Samsung's team to stop going on about it, and warned of a sanction. It is only natural for her to get even more irritated when Samsung pulled this little stunt. They are trying/testing the judge's patience. But the question is whether Koh can do anything about this particular indiscretion, according to the law. We will soon find out no doubt. And though trying a judge's patience is typically bad form/advice, if Samsung feels that the excluded evidence is as important as they apparently do, maybe it's not such a bad legal strategy after all. I suspect they are testing the grounds for a possible appeal on grounds of mistrial, since if the reason the evidence is really excluded is that it was filed late, that mistake won't happen the next time around. So again I ask, what is Samsung's legal transgression here?
Where is my reasoning inaccurate? What facts are not veridical? I'm happy to be proven wrong and to change my perspective. But I'm not seeing much of an argument from many of you, and this response isn't much of one now is it?
Well for one thing, it is the First Amendment that deals with free speech, not the Fifth. That kind of deflates your credibility immediately.
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The Fifth Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
Hey there, Perry Mason, glad to hear you know so much about the law, but last I heard freedom of speech was the First Amendment.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The Fifth Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
Weasels Think Different.
So there are these two lawyers talking and a pretty girl walks by. "Boy," said the first lawyer, I'd like to f**k her." The second lawyer responded, "Out of what?"
Is that acceptable so long as it's not rounded rectangle in the nuts?
LOL. Never heard it, but I like it.
Samsung is playing dirty because they know they're going to lose.
If this was a murder trial with a Black defendant they'd be playing the race card. If it was a rape trial they'd be bringing up the woman's past or how she dresses to make it seem like she asked for it.
And to all the "legal experts" who say they did nothing wrong, answer me this simple question: Why did Judge Koh get so upset over this happening? Surely she's the one who knows better than anyone what should and shouldn't be released? I think I'll take her side over the people taking her words out of context to try and spin it to mean something else.
Well aren't you the legal genius.... These unethical, immoral liars didn't just release the banned (and misleading) "evidence", they declared that it, and it alone, absolved them of any and all responsibility for stealing Apple's IP. It just shows what a bunch of scumbags they really are. There is no doubt, their intent is to poison the jury regardless of their superficial self righteousness and indignation.
I think Samsung realizes it has its mammary gland caught in the wringer.
And what is her side? Oh that's right, we don't know what she can or will do. Until then we ought to construct our beliefs in proportion to the evidence at hand. Apple's claiming Samsung is trying to tamper with the jury. Samsung explained there is no way to tamper with the jury since the jury was instructed not to follow any media related to this case. So unless the jury is not fulfilling its function/duty, which is not a reasonable assumption of law abiding citizens, there can be no jury tampering in principle. Sounds like one side gave an argument and the other did not. I'll let you decide which is which.
I'm sorry but doesn't free speech entitle you to share your opinion when it is asked of you? I think it is quite clear who are the superficially self-righteous in all this. You begin by assuming the worst of other's actions, I take their word for it, and if that word doesn't work with the facts, then I question it, but until then I believe in innocence until proven guilty. Your happy to hang Samsung regardless of their defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
And what is her side? Oh that's right, we don't know what she can or will do. Until then we ought to construct our beliefs in proportion to the evidence at hand.
Oh the irony. We don't know. Well, everyone except for you, who seems to know exactly what's going on.
If this was a non-issue, Koh could have simply said "Mr. Quinn, in the future please refrain from making press releases regarding this case....." and that would be the end of it.
But she didn't. She was visibly upset (people in the court used the word "livid" to describe her state of mind) and demanded to know the names of all involved. There would be no need to make such a request if she wasn't considering some form of action.
This is the only "evidence" we have so far - Koh's response to hearing about this. A letter from Quinn means nothing. Of course they're going to say they were in the right. Do you expect them to make any statement that wasn't 110% in favor of what they did? Do you expect them to include in their statement anything Koh might have said that could hint they did something wrong?
Oh, it's clear Koh is annoyed by this. She told Samsung's team to stop going on about it, and warned of a sanction. It is only natural for her to get even more irritated when Samsung pulled this little stunt. They are trying/testing the judge's patience. But the question is whether Koh can do anything about this particular indiscretion, according to the law. We will soon find out no doubt. And though trying a judge's patience is typically bad form/advice, if Samsung feels that the excluded evidence is as important as they apparently do, maybe it's not such a bad legal strategy after all. I suspect they are testing the grounds for a possible appeal on grounds of mistrial, since if the reason the evidence is really excluded is that it was filed late, that mistake won't happen the next time around. So again I ask, what is Samsung's legal transgression here?
Seems to me they are trying to pollute the jury. If this was a murder trial they would be in prison.
Not possible unless the jury is already corrupt. Are you insinuating the jury is corrupt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
nice try. :-)
Where is my reasoning inaccurate? What facts are not veridical? I'm happy to be proven wrong and to change my perspective. But I'm not seeing much of an argument from many of you, and this response isn't much of one now is it?
Well for one thing, it is the First Amendment that deals with free speech, not the Fifth. That kind of deflates your credibility immediately.
I would imagine that Samsung's lawyers are good at what they do so that makes me wonder what else could they be up to?
Are they looking for a mistrial and hoping this case goes to a different judge?
Are they trying to goad the judge into making a legal mistake so they set up an appeal?
As some has said, are they trying to pollute the jury with excluded evidence?
Or is there some other strategic reason for doing this that we are just not seeing?
Is this a delay tactic to keep stretching out the trial?
To me, that would seem to just p o the judge and make sure more decisions made by her go against them.
Samsung has seemed to do enough stuff to piss off this judge that will make this case more difficult for them.
Just from this layman's point of view.
So I made a careless mistake, does that change the underlying argument? I guess all you care about is logic chopping and not substance though right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The Fifth Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
Hey there, Perry Mason, glad to hear you know so much about the law, but last I heard freedom of speech was the First Amendment.
Originally Posted by quinney
Well for one thing, it is the First Amendment that deals with free speech, not the Fifth. That kind of deflates your credibility immediately.
I thought he was referring to "pleading the fifth".
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I'd like to see this too. Given the lawyer's declaration, I fear it would raise Fifth Amendment issues. That might play well in the appeal courts no?
You're the reason baby Jesus gave us block lists. Have fun attention-whore.
Judge Koh to Samsung: "You will respect my authoritah!"
Samsung to Judge Koh: "You can't tell me! Whatever! I do what I want!"