The judge has the right to limit testimony to prevent filibustering.
However, if the limts are unreasonable, the case could be subject to appeal.
Regardless of that, many hours will be spent drafting an appeal regardless of the outcome. You can argue that it won't be granted, yet I think they'll find something.
Intellectual property rights are the least valuable types of things to take to trial, so 2 weeks or 20 weeks, doesn't matter. Both parties were given chances to settle, and they didn't take it. So the Judge is fully within her right to give a time limit to limit the "cruel and unusual punishment" to the Jury.
Really? Both sides agree that the potential damages are in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. How many other civil cases involve much greater value than that?
While your statement is correct (that the judge has the right to limit the trial time), your reasoning couldn't be more wrong.
Nobody in the world except the plaintiff is going to be inconvenienced while infringing products are on the market.
That's a ridiculous statement. In a criminal case, no one else is inconvenience other than the victim, either. So I guess the case isn't important. Or, in a breach of contract case, no one is inconvenienced but the plaintiff, so it's not important. By its very nature, civil cases most often involve only two parties - so by your logic, all civil cases should be abolished.
Besides, your statement is incorrect, anyway. There's more at stake here than simply Apple and Samsung. What's at stake is the entire issue of how acceptable it is for a company to steal intellectual property from others without permission. If Apple loses this case, it will have severe impact on ANYONE who has intellectual property that they want to protect.
Regardless of that, many hours will be spent drafting an appeal regardless of the outcome. You can argue that it won't be granted, yet I think they'll find something.
I would never argue that it won't be granted. I think it's quite likely that this one will hit the appeals court over at least some issues. The judge has made far too many questionable decisions for it to avoid an appeal. And I think it's likely the appeals court will accept the case over at least some of the issues.
I was simply stating that it was within the judge's right to limit testimony for several reasons.
This is a pre-jury trial. This has all been about settling to avoid a jury trial.
Wrong.
This is a jury trial. The jury has now heard Samsung's case and most of Apple's case (Apple has a few hours left, but Samsung has used their time). If the two sides can't reach an agreement, the jury will decide.
The judge has encouraged them to settle to avoid a jury DECISION. The jury trial is already underway.
Intellectual property rights are the least valuable types of things to take to trial
How can you say that, when the whole way people survive is by our brains. From the first guy who figured out how to light a fire or plant a crop, to the most recent guy who figured out a new type of computer, our intellect is the most valuable thing people have, and intellectual property is hella important. Physical things might be more important to an animal, but to a man intellectual things are equal to physical things.
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.
As far as I know there is no particular standard or presiding body in most cases that would certify someone as an expert. Also, some experts are more expert that others - thus we have both sides presenting their own experts in the same fields with differing opinions.
The judge does not usually certify someone as an expert witness. (I have testified as an expert witness several times.) It is up to the attorney that is paying the tab for the expert witness to have the witness establish their expertise by stating education, practice in field, inventions, patents, years practiced, etc… The common counter move by opposing counsel is for their side to interrupt the expert and tell the judge/court that they recognize this witness as an expert in this particular area and acquiesce to same stealing the opportunity to impress the jury with all the stories of all the wonderful stuff this 'expert' has done and why they should be considered an expert.
As far as I know there is no particular standard or presiding body in most cases that would certify someone as an expert. Also, some experts are more expert that others - thus we have both sides presenting their own experts in the same fields with differing opinions.
The judge does not usually certify someone as an expert witness. (I have testified as an expert witness several times.) It is up to the attorney that is paying the tab for the expert witness to have the witness establish their expertise by stating education, practice in field, inventions, patents, years practiced, etc… The common counter move by opposing counsel is for their side to interrupt the expert and tell the judge/court that they recognize this witness as an expert in this particular area and acquiesce to same stealing the opportunity to impress the jury with all the stories of all the wonderful stuff this 'expert' has done and why they should be considered an expert.
That is not true. For someone to be accepted as an expert, the judge has to accept their credentials.
Apple staying true to their creative process even in the courtroom! Awesome.
It seems perfectly reasonable to want the flexibility of changing your mind which witness is called depending on how testimony progresses. One witness may only need 10 minutes, or depending on how Samsung delays a particular testimony Apple may want to jump to the bottom of their list. I'm a little surprised the judge would insist every single witness regardless of the length has to give testimony. If Apple called 15 out of 22 (more than 20mins. each), what's wrong with that? If however, they only call half then that's obviously an abuse.
Apple staying true to their creative process even in the courtroom! Awesome.
It seems perfectly reasonable to want the flexibility of changing your mind which witness is called depending on how testimony progresses. One witness may only need 10 minutes, or depending on how Samsung delays a particular testimony Apple may want to jump to the bottom of their list. I'm a little surprised the judge would insist every single witness regardless of the length has to give testimony. If Apple called 15 out of 22 (more than 20mins. each), what's wrong with that? If however, they only call half then that's obviously an abuse.
Keep in mind that Samsung has used up essentially all of their time. Apple can therefore get through the witnesses more quickly since they have to spend less time establishing foundation and background.
Another un-American judge deciding the fate of the greatest US company.
Lucy Koh was born in the US, raised in the US, educated in the US. How un-American indeed. Racists like you should not show your face here anymore. Bye.
Clever, but misspelt. You're going to have to work harder for a conspiracy than that! Other people fold dollar bills, find curious numerological traits, follow co-ordinates and so on. What do you do? You mis-spell a name.
Tsk!
(My personal favourite bit: 'SHE CANNOT TALK LIKE THAT'. Just needs mad interrobangs to really firm up the madness...)
Welcome to AppleInsider with a "cracking good" first post. Seriously,
this place can use some linguistic sophistication -- I may be dating myself,
but I haven't heard the expletive "interrobang" in ages, so thank you
for that !?!
That said, I'll add some value here to the reportage for wannabe trial onlookers,
because I've been present in that San Jose courtroom "trial of the century" venue.
Judge Koh has not been getting proper credit for putting up with these
high-powered attorneys-at-law. There is a lot of testosterone in that
boiler room of a court -- they are going at it "tooth-and-nail", and it is
worth it just for the entertainment value.
Okay, so I mainly appreciated the day when the very soft-spoken Dr. Susan Kare
testified about the general "gestalt" of the two parties "look and feel".
Even though she had to admit under oath that she was pulling in $550 per hour
(from Apple) for her expertise, her considered opinion as an icon designer
meant much. Actually, this is a pittance compared to Prof. Andries van Dam's
$1000 per hour, so methinks there is still male/female remuneration disparity...
Sorry for the name dropping here, but Dr. Kare at I traded quips at the elevator
about things like her designer watch -- not an Apple iPod watch, but something else,
perfectly reflective of "trade dress" confusion which is at the core of the trial.
(Aside: Neither here nor there except for me being an admitted Apple sycophant
[read "fanboy"], I briefly related, there not being much time in an elevator,
about Steve Jobs' "attack interview" with me at NeXT.)
At any rate, although Judge Koh may not be a "silverback gorilla" like Judge Alsup
I witnessed at Apple v. Psystar, or Judge Vaughn Walker at the key
Apple v. Microsoft copyright trial many moons ago, she is putting up with much
BS from the not-disinterested parties who are spending megamillions on this sideshow.
I would never argue that it won't be granted. I think it's quite likely that this one will hit the appeals court over at least some issues. The judge has made far too many questionable decisions for it to avoid an appeal. And I think it's likely the appeals court will accept the case over at least some of the issues.
I was simply stating that it was within the judge's right to limit testimony for several reasons.
I wasn't really questioning whether she could limit testimony. I was saying that even though an appeals case requires some kind of merit, we are talking about two companies who can afford a lot of legal resources looking through court transcripts for something to argue if they determine it to be worthwhile.
As far as I know there is no particular standard or presiding body in most cases that would certify someone as an expert. Also, some experts are more expert that others - thus we have both sides presenting their own experts in the same fields with differing opinions.
The judge does not usually certify someone as an expert witness. (I have testified as an expert witness several times.) It is up to the attorney that is paying the tab for the expert witness to have the witness establish their expertise by stating education, practice in field, inventions, patents, years practiced, etc… The common counter move by opposing counsel is for their side to interrupt the expert and tell the judge/court that they recognize this witness as an expert in this particular area and acquiesce to same stealing the opportunity to impress the jury with all the stories of all the wonderful stuff this 'expert' has done and why they should be considered an expert.
(In a small nutshell) The witness must demonstrate that they have the necessary qualifications to present their opinion, including having education/training and practical experience in the area and the opinion must be based in accepted practice.
If the judge doesn't believe the witness meets the qualifications then they are not an "expert" and their testimony has no relevance. It is usually up to the party opposing the witness to raise issues of lack of qualification.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
This is a pre-jury trial. This has all been about settling to avoid a jury trial.
So what were the 10 jurors (7 men and 3 women) in this case selected for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The judge has the right to limit testimony to prevent filibustering.
However, if the limts are unreasonable, the case could be subject to appeal.
Regardless of that, many hours will be spent drafting an appeal regardless of the outcome. You can argue that it won't be granted, yet I think they'll find something.
I can't help but think that Apple shouldn't have hired Lionel Hutz, Attorney-at-Law, for this job...
Lionel Hutz: Now don't you worry, Mr. Cook, I... uh-oh. We've drawn Judge Koh.
Tim Cook: Is that bad?
Lionel Hutz: Well, she's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over her dog.
Tim Cook: You did?
Lionel Hutz:Well, replace the word "kinda" with the word "repeatedly," and the word "dog" with "son."
Thats right fandoids!
News: Judge denied the use of the Chewbacka defence!!!
Now wheep!
"Your honor, I am not smoking crack. I might be tired, drunk, fantasizing about you naked, and smoking crack. But I am definitely not drunk."
Really? Both sides agree that the potential damages are in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. How many other civil cases involve much greater value than that?
While your statement is correct (that the judge has the right to limit the trial time), your reasoning couldn't be more wrong.
That's a ridiculous statement. In a criminal case, no one else is inconvenience other than the victim, either. So I guess the case isn't important. Or, in a breach of contract case, no one is inconvenienced but the plaintiff, so it's not important. By its very nature, civil cases most often involve only two parties - so by your logic, all civil cases should be abolished.
Besides, your statement is incorrect, anyway. There's more at stake here than simply Apple and Samsung. What's at stake is the entire issue of how acceptable it is for a company to steal intellectual property from others without permission. If Apple loses this case, it will have severe impact on ANYONE who has intellectual property that they want to protect.
I would never argue that it won't be granted. I think it's quite likely that this one will hit the appeals court over at least some issues. The judge has made far too many questionable decisions for it to avoid an appeal. And I think it's likely the appeals court will accept the case over at least some of the issues.
I was simply stating that it was within the judge's right to limit testimony for several reasons.
Wrong.
This is a jury trial. The jury has now heard Samsung's case and most of Apple's case (Apple has a few hours left, but Samsung has used their time). If the two sides can't reach an agreement, the jury will decide.
The judge has encouraged them to settle to avoid a jury DECISION. The jury trial is already underway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
Exactly.
Intellectual property rights are the least valuable types of things to take to trial
How can you say that, when the whole way people survive is by our brains. From the first guy who figured out how to light a fire or plant a crop, to the most recent guy who figured out a new type of computer, our intellect is the most valuable thing people have, and intellectual property is hella important. Physical things might be more important to an animal, but to a man intellectual things are equal to physical things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFHJr
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.
As far as I know there is no particular standard or presiding body in most cases that would certify someone as an expert. Also, some experts are more expert that others - thus we have both sides presenting their own experts in the same fields with differing opinions.
The judge does not usually certify someone as an expert witness. (I have testified as an expert witness several times.) It is up to the attorney that is paying the tab for the expert witness to have the witness establish their expertise by stating education, practice in field, inventions, patents, years practiced, etc… The common counter move by opposing counsel is for their side to interrupt the expert and tell the judge/court that they recognize this witness as an expert in this particular area and acquiesce to same stealing the opportunity to impress the jury with all the stories of all the wonderful stuff this 'expert' has done and why they should be considered an expert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizSandford
I miss Judge Wapner.
"What, are you on crack?"
That is not true. For someone to be accepted as an expert, the judge has to accept their credentials.
Apple staying true to their creative process even in the courtroom! Awesome.
It seems perfectly reasonable to want the flexibility of changing your mind which witness is called depending on how testimony progresses. One witness may only need 10 minutes, or depending on how Samsung delays a particular testimony Apple may want to jump to the bottom of their list. I'm a little surprised the judge would insist every single witness regardless of the length has to give testimony. If Apple called 15 out of 22 (more than 20mins. each), what's wrong with that? If however, they only call half then that's obviously an abuse.
Keep in mind that Samsung has used up essentially all of their time. Apple can therefore get through the witnesses more quickly since they have to spend less time establishing foundation and background.
Originally Posted by Drax7
Another un-American judge deciding the fate of the greatest US company.
UnAmerican in the way she's acting in this situation, or unAmerican for a different reason?
[dead head ed had edited it]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drax7
Another un-American judge deciding the fate of the greatest US company.
Lucy Koh was born in the US, raised in the US, educated in the US. How un-American indeed. Racists like you should not show your face here anymore. Bye.
[In reply to first-time poster mandybrigwell]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandybrigwell
I see what you did there.
Judge Lucy Koh -> Kohrea.
Clever, but misspelt. You're going to have to work harder for a conspiracy than that! Other people fold dollar bills, find curious numerological traits, follow co-ordinates and so on. What do you do? You mis-spell a name.
Tsk!
(My personal favourite bit: 'SHE CANNOT TALK LIKE THAT'. Just needs mad interrobangs to really firm up the madness...)
Welcome to AppleInsider with a "cracking good" first post. Seriously,
this place can use some linguistic sophistication -- I may be dating myself,
but I haven't heard the expletive "interrobang" in ages, so thank you
for that !?!
That said, I'll add some value here to the reportage for wannabe trial onlookers,
because I've been present in that San Jose courtroom "trial of the century" venue.
Judge Koh has not been getting proper credit for putting up with these
high-powered attorneys-at-law. There is a lot of testosterone in that
boiler room of a court -- they are going at it "tooth-and-nail", and it is
worth it just for the entertainment value.
Okay, so I mainly appreciated the day when the very soft-spoken Dr. Susan Kare
testified about the general "gestalt" of the two parties "look and feel".
Even though she had to admit under oath that she was pulling in $550 per hour
(from Apple) for her expertise, her considered opinion as an icon designer
meant much. Actually, this is a pittance compared to Prof. Andries van Dam's
$1000 per hour, so methinks there is still male/female remuneration disparity...
Sorry for the name dropping here, but Dr. Kare at I traded quips at the elevator
about things like her designer watch -- not an Apple iPod watch, but something else,
perfectly reflective of "trade dress" confusion which is at the core of the trial.
(Aside: Neither here nor there except for me being an admitted Apple sycophant
[read "fanboy"], I briefly related, there not being much time in an elevator,
about Steve Jobs' "attack interview" with me at NeXT.)
At any rate, although Judge Koh may not be a "silverback gorilla" like Judge Alsup
I witnessed at Apple v. Psystar, or Judge Vaughn Walker at the key
Apple v. Microsoft copyright trial many moons ago, she is putting up with much
BS from the not-disinterested parties who are spending megamillions on this sideshow.
--retiarius
You know it's bad when a government employee is complaining about corporate bureaucracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I would never argue that it won't be granted. I think it's quite likely that this one will hit the appeals court over at least some issues. The judge has made far too many questionable decisions for it to avoid an appeal. And I think it's likely the appeals court will accept the case over at least some of the issues.
I was simply stating that it was within the judge's right to limit testimony for several reasons.
I wasn't really questioning whether she could limit testimony. I was saying that even though an appeals case requires some kind of merit, we are talking about two companies who can afford a lot of legal resources looking through court transcripts for something to argue if they determine it to be worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot
As far as I know there is no particular standard or presiding body in most cases that would certify someone as an expert. Also, some experts are more expert that others - thus we have both sides presenting their own experts in the same fields with differing opinions.
The judge does not usually certify someone as an expert witness. (I have testified as an expert witness several times.) It is up to the attorney that is paying the tab for the expert witness to have the witness establish their expertise by stating education, practice in field, inventions, patents, years practiced, etc… The common counter move by opposing counsel is for their side to interrupt the expert and tell the judge/court that they recognize this witness as an expert in this particular area and acquiesce to same stealing the opportunity to impress the jury with all the stories of all the wonderful stuff this 'expert' has done and why they should be considered an expert.
There is absolutely a standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
(In a small nutshell) The witness must demonstrate that they have the necessary qualifications to present their opinion, including having education/training and practical experience in the area and the opinion must be based in accepted practice.
If the judge doesn't believe the witness meets the qualifications then they are not an "expert" and their testimony has no relevance. It is usually up to the party opposing the witness to raise issues of lack of qualification.