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.
Which comments specifically has this judge been reported as saying that qualifies this comment to have any relevance with this article, the main topic of this thread? Thanks.
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.?
Very convenient how you left out all the decisions the judge has made against Apple and how fitting you post this on a thread with the article being about the judge being upset with one of Apple's moves.
Today, Samsung's expert witness stated that $27,000 is the appropriate cost to "work around" Apple patents. How many "pages" were submitted to Judge Koh to certify his expertise? Since these submissions obviously do not root out incompetent witnesses, why bother with all the paperwork?
Also, huge sums of money, the prestige of two mega companies and the pocketbooks of millions of individual investors and pension funds are at risk. Is it too much to ask Judge Koh to remain civil, work hard and do her best? I am embarrassed by her behavior, today.
thank you for posting the link to her bio. it clearly supports your position. especially the part about the bribes and her being a cockroach.
... what would margaret cho say?
TYPE "impeach judge" into google and LUCY KOhREA magically populates the search result twice. she has hugely corrupt and pissed off enough people to be trending on google .
22 witnesses with 6.5 hours left works out to a bit under 18 minutes per witness. I guess they can feasibility do it.
It does seem a bit excessive tbh.
They also say they might not have needed for all 22, but under legal rules they can't add names that aren't listed so they name everyone they might to cover the bases. In some cases they may decide that expert q is better than expert n so they switch out. Both are on the possible list so it's covered procedure wise.
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.
This is a jury trial. I'm sure that Koh is perfectly competent with the legal issues, which is what she is there for.
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.
Because thy might not know who that is until they see Samsung's cross exam tactics. And if the name wasn't submitted beforehand it's crazy hard to impossible to add someone.
I am a non attorney working in a legal department. I have learned that it never pays to piss off the judge. It is one thing to represent your client zealously. It is another thing to be overzealous. It is a fine distinction. Judges need to keep their cases moving. One case should not take over the docket. Judges encourage, cajole, sometimes threaten parties to settle before trial. Remember that the judge is the judge and he/she makes the ultimate decision. When he/she is sitting in his/her chambers mulling over which witness to believe, or what argument holds more weight, he/she just might remember which side caused more problems.
I was working recently on a lawsuit. The plaintiff's counsel wanted 50 days of trial time! The judge flipped. Ultimately, somehow, total trial time for both sides was a grand total of SEVEN days. The inexperienced, but big ego, plaintiff's counsel was not too happy about losing the case.
It does seem a bit unprofessional to make comments like hers, as it does to whine about how much work she is expected to do. Her job is supposed to be challenging, it is well paid, and a lot of people would absolutely love to have her job. I think you could also argue that a lot is at stake here (although it's not like somebody is facing the death penalty, of course).
Poor woman, though. I mean, really. If you had 75 pages worth of nonsense (meaning something difficult for us as average citizens to understand) and on top of that you already read hundreds of pages of paper... it's a lot.
Nonsense. That's her job. This case involves hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence that Apple and Samsung's attorneys have to go through. It's extremely unprofessional for her to complain about 75.
Furthermore, Apple has every right to include as many witnesses as they wish within the time limits given. More importantly, by cutting witnesses now, she is limiting Apple's options unfairly. Apple may have 3 potential witnesses as rebuttal witnesses for one topic, but want to hear what Samsung says in its final hour before deciding which one to use. Under court rules, they have to list all three even if they are only going to use one of the three.
I am a non attorney working in a legal department. I have learned that it never pays to piss off the judge. It is one thing to represent your client zealously. It is another thing to be overzealous. It is a fine distinction. Judges need to keep their cases moving. One case should not take over the docket. Judges encourage, cajole, sometimes threaten parties to settle before trial. Remember that the judge is the judge and he/she makes the ultimate decision. When he/she is sitting in his/her chambers mulling over which witness to believe, or what argument holds more weight, he/she just might remember which side caused more problems.
That may be true, but think about who has pissed off the judge in this case.
Samsung has already been sanctioned 4 times.
Samsung released information to the public that Koh had barred.
Samsung violated a direct court order by bringing witnesses into the court room.
And this is not unreasonable. 75 pages is nothing and Apple has every right to make last minute decisions on which of the witnesses they plan to use. It's Koh's rules that require them to prepare the 75 page document and announce their potential list of witnesses so she shouldn't be whining about their exercising their options.
Today, Samsung's expert witness stated that $27,000 is the appropriate cost to "work around" Apple patents. How many "pages" were submitted to Judge Koh to certify his expertise? Since these submissions obviously do not root out incompetent witnesses, why bother with all the paperwork?
Also, huge sums of money, the prestige of two mega companies and the pocketbooks of millions of individual investors and pension funds are at risk. Is it too much to ask Judge Koh to remain civil, work hard and do her best? I am embarrassed by her behavior, today.
Right. $27 K to work around Apple's patents. Then why haven't they done so? Their potential damages are accumulating daily - as are their legal bills. If it was only $27 K, it would have been done ages ago. That alone proves that Samsung is lying and the figure is bogus.
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
Honestly, it probably is already over, because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
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.
Stupid judge, should be impeached for remark, mistrial, reversal, and let the litagants pay the costs.
Nope. She should be investigated, however, for choosing to ignore actual justice in favor of some made up "timetable" to which she wants the trial to adhere. THAT is nonsense.
Originally Posted by LizSandford
I miss Judge Wapner.
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.
The justice system in the USA is supposed to be great. I like the principle of it but in practice judges limit defendants: testimony, and evidence the defence believes is important. I don't believe any judge should have the right to prevent someone from testifying or preventing evidence from being heard by a jury. Time shouldn't enter into it when the truth hasn't been fully heard.
Corporate cases aren't as important as criminal or civil cases against people.
There is an even fairer way to adjudicate all types of cases. Each side can pick three people whom they believe will be impartial and those six people can pick another three. That way there will always be a balance of opinions on the panel. That panel will be the judges and jury. The majority finding will make the decision and both parties will have to live with it.
I've heard plenty of stories about how judges are just insane and shouldn't be on the bench. They are power hungry monsters. Anything that threatens their little world is swiftly attacked and punished. There should be an emotional fitness test mandated for judges.
Comments
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.?
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.
Which comments specifically has this judge been reported as saying that qualifies this comment to have any relevance with this article, the main topic of this thread? Thanks.
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.?
Very convenient how you left out all the decisions the judge has made against Apple and how fitting you post this on a thread with the article being about the judge being upset with one of Apple's moves.
Today, Samsung's expert witness stated that $27,000 is the appropriate cost to "work around" Apple patents. How many "pages" were submitted to Judge Koh to certify his expertise? Since these submissions obviously do not root out incompetent witnesses, why bother with all the paperwork?
Also, huge sums of money, the prestige of two mega companies and the pocketbooks of millions of individual investors and pension funds are at risk. Is it too much to ask Judge Koh to remain civil, work hard and do her best? I am embarrassed by her behavior, today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch
thank you for posting the link to her bio. it clearly supports your position. especially the part about the bribes and her being a cockroach.
... what would margaret cho say?
TYPE "impeach judge" into google and LUCY KOhREA magically populates the search result twice. she has hugely corrupt and pissed off enough people to be trending on google .
She should not be sitting on this case. She is incompetent and unfit for her job with her corrupt actions in the past and HUGE a liability to the case with her corruption and PRO-kOREAN bias.
(samscum)Korea and (bribed korean-american judge )lucy KORhREA def. APPLE
http://injusticesystem.weebly.com/wisdom-of-kohtradiction.html
They also say they might not have needed for all 22, but under legal rules they can't add names that aren't listed so they name everyone they might to cover the bases. In some cases they may decide that expert q is better than expert n so they switch out. Both are on the possible list so it's covered procedure wise.
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.
This is a jury trial. I'm sure that Koh is perfectly competent with the legal issues, which is what she is there for.
Because thy might not know who that is until they see Samsung's cross exam tactics. And if the name wasn't submitted beforehand it's crazy hard to impossible to add someone.
People who do not understand street slang should not attempt to use it. Even I know that much.
Her quote:
"Unless you're smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren't going to be called when you have less than four hours."
That is not how you say it.
You don't keep talking after the the insult. You need to let it sink in first.
Correct usage:
"What, are you on crack?"
"Put down the crack pipe".
"Were you a crack baby?"
I am a non attorney working in a legal department. I have learned that it never pays to piss off the judge. It is one thing to represent your client zealously. It is another thing to be overzealous. It is a fine distinction. Judges need to keep their cases moving. One case should not take over the docket. Judges encourage, cajole, sometimes threaten parties to settle before trial. Remember that the judge is the judge and he/she makes the ultimate decision. When he/she is sitting in his/her chambers mulling over which witness to believe, or what argument holds more weight, he/she just might remember which side caused more problems.
I was working recently on a lawsuit. The plaintiff's counsel wanted 50 days of trial time! The judge flipped. Ultimately, somehow, total trial time for both sides was a grand total of SEVEN days. The inexperienced, but big ego, plaintiff's counsel was not too happy about losing the case.
It does seem a bit unprofessional to make comments like hers, as it does to whine about how much work she is expected to do. Her job is supposed to be challenging, it is well paid, and a lot of people would absolutely love to have her job. I think you could also argue that a lot is at stake here (although it's not like somebody is facing the death penalty, of course).
Nonsense. That's her job. This case involves hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence that Apple and Samsung's attorneys have to go through. It's extremely unprofessional for her to complain about 75.
Furthermore, Apple has every right to include as many witnesses as they wish within the time limits given. More importantly, by cutting witnesses now, she is limiting Apple's options unfairly. Apple may have 3 potential witnesses as rebuttal witnesses for one topic, but want to hear what Samsung says in its final hour before deciding which one to use. Under court rules, they have to list all three even if they are only going to use one of the three.
That may be true, but think about who has pissed off the judge in this case.
Samsung has already been sanctioned 4 times.
Samsung released information to the public that Koh had barred.
Samsung violated a direct court order by bringing witnesses into the court room.
And this is not unreasonable. 75 pages is nothing and Apple has every right to make last minute decisions on which of the witnesses they plan to use. It's Koh's rules that require them to prepare the 75 page document and announce their potential list of witnesses so she shouldn't be whining about their exercising their options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Samsung has already been sanctioned 4 times.
Samsung released information to the public that Koh had barred.
Samsung violated a direct court order by bringing witnesses into the court room.
And one Samsung attorney was practicing/arguing in court without a license in that jurisdiction.
Right. $27 K to work around Apple's patents. Then why haven't they done so? Their potential damages are accumulating daily - as are their legal bills. If it was only $27 K, it would have been done ages ago. That alone proves that Samsung is lying and the figure is bogus.
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.
The judge is biased towards Apple!! etc etc.
Originally Posted by Rodent
Stupid judge, should be impeached for remark, mistrial, reversal, and let the litagants pay the costs.
Nope. She should be investigated, however, for choosing to ignore actual justice in favor of some made up "timetable" to which she wants the trial to adhere. THAT is nonsense.
Originally Posted by LizSandford
I miss Judge Wapner.
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.
The justice system in the USA is supposed to be great. I like the principle of it but in practice judges limit defendants: testimony, and evidence the defence believes is important. I don't believe any judge should have the right to prevent someone from testifying or preventing evidence from being heard by a jury. Time shouldn't enter into it when the truth hasn't been fully heard.
Corporate cases aren't as important as criminal or civil cases against people.
There is an even fairer way to adjudicate all types of cases. Each side can pick three people whom they believe will be impartial and those six people can pick another three. That way there will always be a balance of opinions on the panel. That panel will be the judges and jury. The majority finding will make the decision and both parties will have to live with it.
I've heard plenty of stories about how judges are just insane and shouldn't be on the bench. They are power hungry monsters. Anything that threatens their little world is swiftly attacked and punished. There should be an emotional fitness test mandated for judges.