Judge Suggests Apple Is "Smoking Crack" With Witness List In Samsung Case 318
infodragon writes "Today in the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case Judge Lucy Koh's patience wore thin as Apple presented a 75-page document highlighting 22 witnesses it would like to call in for rebuttal testimony, provided the court had the time. As those following the case closely know quite well, the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin. As quoted by The Verge as they sat in the courtroom listening in, Koh wondered aloud why Apple would offer the list 'when unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!'"
court strategy for jury (Score:4, Insightful)
This is infront of a jury.
"We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony"
"They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"
It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method.
And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:court strategy for jury (Score:5, Funny)
Objection! Your honor, we at Apple strongly prefer insufflation of powder cocaine to smoking crack!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:court strategy for jury (Score:5, Informative)
This is infront of a jury. "We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony" "They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"
It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method. And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.
Clueless alert! The sort of evidence wrangling going on here will never been seen by the jury. All this stuff takes place before the jury is seated or while the jury is in the jury room. When the jury is in the courtroom the only things that are ever discussed are testimony and evidence that has been officially admitted. Seriously this is foundational to the way our justice system works. If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.
Re:court strategy for jury (Score:5, Informative)
More likely, opposing counsel would object, the comment would be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it (both immediately, and possibly with a reminder in jury instructions.) If it was grossly prejudicial, opposing counsel might move for and be granted a mistrial (they might move for it anyway, because, hey, it doesn't hurt to shoot for the moon.)
Contempt would probably only be a result of breaching a previous specific order.
Re:court strategy for jury (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you for pointing that out. People forget or simply don't understand that in a jury trial the judge acts as the finder of law and the jury acts as the finder of fact. Deciding what evidence can be presented to a jury (admissable) is decided by a judge and, as you point out, done so out of sight and sound of the jury to remove the possibility of unadmitted evidence influencing the verdict. Deciding what presented evidence is true and believable and what is not is up to the jury.
The Reality Distortion Field (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently died with Steve.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Reality Distortion Field (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, is that their crack pipe design you're describing? I can't tell from those phrases.
Re: (Score:3)
A beast with a lightly curved back, rounded corners, placement of a single [easy to touch] button, and [desirable] placement of ports? Sexy, indeed.
Best Judge ever!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.
She needs her own show on TV.
Re: (Score:3)
> She doesn't take ANYONE's crap.
> Or did you forget that Samsung was prevented from entering the F700 into evidence and a few other things?
How would that be taking crap?
Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
His hourly rate probably is high, he is an expert and he probably had to be convinced to put his retirement aside
He isn't retired, he is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. But he also appears have a rather profitable sideline as a (self described) professional expert witness.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they're more like consultants?
To a reasonable degree, I can see paying expert witnesses. If you find a person that is a respected authority, agrees with you, is good at expressing themselves clearly and unambiguously, and is already gainfully employed, you can either (A) subpoena them, drag them away from what they're working on, and probably cost them money and piss them off a bit and end up hurting your case by their spinning their testimony aga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
anyone else see him spending 136 hours as kinda fishy? did he really spend that much time?
Well, to put it this way, if it took him 136 hours to see that the Samsung design was similar to the Apple design (he was a design witness), maybe Samsung should call him to the stand :)
Re: (Score:3)
$550 an hour is totally reasonable? I'm pretty sure if you took 55 people off the streets, paid them $10/hr each, and put them to work for over 3 full work weeks you'd get a more comprehensive result than "the Galaxy S has the same rectangular form as the iPhone along with features like black color, a display central on the front of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped speaker."
I could probably get my eleven year old brother to provide a better analysis for free in a day.
Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550 (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a consultant at a big 4 firm, and my hourly rate (before any discounts) is more than $550, and I am nowhere near senior manager let alone partner. His time is worth a lot. He is not being paid millions to do this, but that rate would be par for the course, if not a little cheap.
...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal... (Score:2, Funny)
Koh may have just handed Apple what they need to prove she has a bias if they need to appeal this case later.
There appropriate ways for a Judge to express their frustrations at a plaintiff.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering her attitude towards both sides, is it possible for both sides to request her removal?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else think the legal system would make more sense if they were smoking crack?
Re: (Score:3)
Changing jurisdiction (Score:2)
In other news.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
in favor of Apple.
Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?
No, she has just gotten to know Apple better than she did before.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
in favor of Apple.
Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?
No, she has just gotten to know Apple better than she did before.
No, both sides have been enormous cunts for the entire trial, and she's pissed at both of them for that reason. It got bad enough that if Samsung loses, they're basically guaranteed a full appeal at this point. Probably the same with Apple. So we're almost certainly going to get to relive all this AGAIN! WEEE!
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
No, both sides have been enormous cunts for the entire trial, and she's pissed at both of them for that reason. It got bad enough that if Samsung loses, they're basically guaranteed a full appeal at this point. Probably the same with Apple. So we're almost certainly going to get to relive all this AGAIN! WEEE!
This. Since almost the beginning, when Samsung's lawyers started lining up evidence for the judge to strike down, this trial was merely a pre-game for the appeal. In big trials like this, appeals are inevitable (unless the process is exhausting enough to make a settlement more appealing), so this move suggests Apple's lawyers are now finishing off with enough material to make the appeal trial that much more interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
so this move suggests Apple's lawyers are now finishing off with enough material to make the appeal trial that much more interesting.
If it's not presented at trial (this includes testimony), it doesn't get looked at in the Appeals court.
I don't see how an Appeals judge could send the case back to the original court because rebuttal witnesses could not be called during the alloted time for the trial.
That's not an error of law.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Interesting)
Apples makes nothing other than designs and owns very little other than cash. The whole house of cards (their market cap) can can fall based on a marketing failure of their next product. This is the ONLY reason they need Android and Samsung to fail. Apple is a middle man with a design that is currently in style. They must stay in style to keep it moving. There is NO fall back plan other than spreading out the cash on hand. The stock value is based on maintaining future sales, not capital equipment. Samsung OWNS factories, they design and manufacture things from raw material to end user product very big and very small. Large R&D centers that produce products that just about every company that makes something that uses power uses in their products, ships, earth moving equipment, large industrial power control devices, home appliances, LCD screens, power supplies, chips, dips, chains, and whips.
Samsung Whips ?! (Score:4, Funny)
their products, ships, earth moving equipment, large industrial power control devices, home appliances, LCD screens, power supplies, chips, dips, chains, and whips .
Oh God knows I tried, but no matter which search engine I use, I just can't find "Samsung Whip" or "Samsung Whips" or anything similar
Would you be kind enough to tell us where to locate the Samsung Whips(TM) ?
Many thanks !!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Market Cap is just shares outstanding times stock price. It's just one attempt at measuring how "large" a company is.......and really, once stock is "in the wild", it doesn't really affect the business of the company *.
* By that, I mean that if the stock price goes up or down, it doesn't affect how much money a company has or whether a company sells its products or if a company even turns a profit. Obviously, management is responsible for making sure that the stockholders continue to want to be stockholde
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is a tiny company with a bunch of over-optimistic investors.
Over-optimistic investors, maybe. "Tiny company" is ridiculous by any standard, in any way you measure it. They have more than sixty thousand employees, they have $100 billion in cash, they have a world-wide retail presence and brand recognition... that's just stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
They have more than sixty thousand employees
For reference, Samsung has 220,000 employees.
No, it isn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
The share prices is the marginal trade price for small numbers of shares. Multiplying it by the number of shares is a bogus number. If all the shareholders in Apple tried to cash in on the same day - or even the same six months window - the price would collapse.
Market cap is a term invented by Wall Street to sell stock bubbles to dim punters.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of Judge Jackson in United_States vs. Microsoft. He got so pissed at Microsoft's behavior in court that he said some rather unfriendly things about the company in interviews (see http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/42071 [wired.com]).
Which was probably not so smart and might have contributed to his verdict (breaking up Microsoft) being overturned on appeal.
I always wondered why he did not keep his mouth shut and sanction Microsoft's legal team instead. They did some things that might have counted as perjury, such as presenting a faked video as evidence.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering she already handled around 20 cases involving Apple, she's not a very fast learner ...
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they do tend to post their reasoning and references behind their assertions... And that is a damn sight better than blind assertions or having to choose faith from authority. Sometimes the judges (being human which also means being biased, low-information, lazy, sick, impatient, etc at times) are indeed wrong or performing poorly. Once they put on the black robe they don't become perfect after all.
I've been impressed with the number of times I would normally have to do a [citation needed] but been pleasantly surprised at the fact that they took the time to dig up old exhibits, get other opinions from lawyers and specialists, list the relevant court documents directly from PACER or otherwise expand on the logic behind their reasoning. It's a very technical discussion of very complicated issues which is oddly and refreshingly accessible to even a lay-person who is not trained in lawyer-fu and doesn't speak legaleze. I would go so far as to assert that if politicians were required to reference all of their assertions at least as well as Groklaw references and explains theirs then politics would be a dead and unnecessary art after a couple of straight forward debates (barring incomprehensible idiots amongst the population who would cut off their nose to spite their face).
To use an example; I could assert that Romney frequently tends to come off as awkward and stiff under public pressure whereas Obama still tends to come off as collected and calm under the same. Some people would disagree with me because of a variety of reasons possibly including that they have political reasons not to like Obama or to speak in favor of Romney. However, a reader asserting bias in my observation is basically showing the bias of the reader themselves. My statements can be evaluated on their face and I could source plenty of incidents of this happening. So, is my assertion fundamentally an opinion at this point? Yes. An opinion which can be backed by examples? Yes. Biased? Not really. Partisan? No.
Groklaw explaining court proceedings works like that, and they do post their opinions and their relevant references inline in the same pieces. You also have access to the raw documents yourself and are free to draw your own conclusions because you have the same information available to you as they do. But you also have to think a little on how well you believe yourself to understand the matters at hand better than they do.
Completely partisan analysis as you assert implies they are hiding, misrepresenting, or otherwise masking information which I have seen no evidence to support. Care to provide examples? I haven't seen any incidence of them failing to back or retract potentially controversial assertions.
- Toast
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Judges become judges so they judge the exciting world of Patent Ownership rights.
She is probably just pissed at the entire case, and trying to do her best to keep fair headed.
Apple is strong on these patents because of apples previous history. They made the Apple Macintosh, they didn't file all their patents, and got eaten alive by their competitors.
Samsung is trying to keep their products innovative and new. And a lot of apples patents are not really as impressive as Apple says.
To be a Judge where you are probably more interested in making sure every one get fair justice. These cases seem like petty bickering over nothing. However there are laws on the books and need to be followed.
Re: (Score:2)
laws that the patent trolls bought and paid for
Re: (Score:2)
She keeps sending the two parties away with instruction to try to figure something out, away from courtroom antics. They keep coming back like angry children, ready to fight it out. I'm not surprised that she's fed up with it all.
Personally, I'm hoping that Apple gets a nasty slap in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it's possible to sanction ALL the lawyers.... Maybe that would set a precedent that if lawyers are abusing their privilege, they get sanctioned. This might clean up courtoom antics and make going to court much less painful, if the actual lawyers have to be continually responsible for their behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
when bad behavior has no actual negative consequences, bad behavior continues to exist.
well, DUH!
until there are consequences for waste of time 'I'm gonna sue your ass!' moves, the lunacy will continue.
if, otoh, the lawyers had SKIN in the game (and jail time for when they act like ambulance-chasers that most of them are, anyway) then you'd see real change.
white collar crime usually is just a 'cost of business' and there's no real pain involved. so it won't stop. its a business, in fact!
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
How about: Both Apple and Samsung get nothing since they can't come to an agreement. In other words: Neither Apple, nor Samsung can now use rounded rectangles, glass screens, or shiny black finish. Since you can't play nice or be fair, nobody wins.
Re: (Score:2)
However there are laws on the books and need to be followed.
No. There are laws on the books that SHOLDN'T BE THERE, but without them the Lawyers and Judges (who are also lawyers) wouldn't have jobs.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, there are quite a few aspects of the Apple operating system that did not come from Xerox:
The Finder and its interface
Drag-and-drop file manipulation, including dropping files onto a trash icon
Drop-down menus
Multiple views of the file system (e.g. icon vs. list)
OS support for drawing into partially obscured windows
Desk accessories
Direct editing of file names
Copying data in multiple formats to the clipboard
Automatic updating of windows when rearranged
However, it is not quite true that Apple did not protect its ideas. At that time, computer software was protected more by copyright than patents, as the court precedents that determined that software features are patentable had not yet been established. Rather, Apple was tricked by Microsoft into licensing the key original features of the Mac operating system to them. In return for developing software for the Mac, Microsoft asked for a license to some features of the Mac GUI, including some of the unique features listed above. Because Microsoft was pursuing a very different approach to a GUI, with data displayed in separate panes of the display rather than in overlapping windows, Jobs apparently felt that their OS was not directly competing with the Mac, and agreed. Microsoft then turned around and released a version of Windows that blatantly copied Apple's approach. Betrayed, Apple sued, arguing "We licensed those features for the original version of Windows, not the one that imitates the Mac." The court reasonably responded, "Well then, you should have specified that int he license," and Apple lost.
But it is probably true that this early experience contributed Apple's modern no-tolerance approach toward companies they perceive as crossing the line that separates competition from copying.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Informative)
No, as you would have noticed if you'd read more carefully, I pointed out that protection back in those days was based on copyright law, not patent, so the issues you raise were irrelevant. However, based upon subsequent court precedents, it is clear that many of those features would be considered patentable by modern standards. They were, in fact, not merely ideas but based on a specific implementations--you may have heard of them; they were known as the Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh.
As an aside, it is preferable for such features to be protected by patent rather than by copyright, as the term of patent is much shorter than copyright. Any design or technical features patented at that time (if modern rules had applied) would have passed into the public domain quite a few years ago, but any copyrights are still valid. Indeed, the original patent on the mouse had expired by the time the Apple Lisa was introduced.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
But copyright only matters if you copy the actual bytes, while patents apply even if you implement it from scratch and have never seen the patented invention before. Its reach is much wider and protection against infringing them is much, much more difficult to achieve, since you can infringe without even knowing.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:4, Interesting)
She certainly does seem unhinged. I can't imagine that this won't end up being some sort of mistrial and tried again.
Her behavior through this whole trial has disgusted me. This stuff is really damn important. Why are the companies being so limited in the amount of time they can have witnesses on the stand? In such a case with such a long history and of such importance, shouldn't the jury be allowed to hear all evidence that is relevant that the two sides want to produce? I mean, I can understand not want to drag it out over six months, and if the lawyers started putting completely irrelevant witnesses on the stand just to try to filibuster the trial, I can understand her wanting to crack down on them. But this is ridiculous.
At this point, if I were a lawyer for either side, it would be awful hard to care which way this trial goes because it just seems obvious to me that whatever the jury decides is going to be pretty unimportant once this trial is overturned and the next one begins.
It really is starting to strongly sound to me like Judge Koh is more concerned with her own ego and power trip than in being an impartial judge conducting a fair trial.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
Two points.
One: this is a jury trial. As such, there are twelve jurors, private citizens like yourself, who have their lives on hold (without pay!) listening to two corporate behemoths whine at each other. Dragging this out for an unreasonable amount of time will create real problems for real people.
Two: Judge Koh has more than just this case on her docket, and it isn't fair to everyone else in her district that Apple v. Samsung take up an unreasonable amount of time and prevent other cases to come to trial.
If you can't present your case with 25 hours of face time before the jury, well, you can go fuck off. The lawyers in this case don't get hired by trillion-dollar multinationals by being tame, they're going to bend any rule they can get away with. The judge needs to present a strong barrier to that.
(Oh, and bonus point: All three parties know that this is going to go to appeal anyway, unless a settlement is reached or something.)
Another Perry Mason wannabe. Sigh (Score:3, Informative)
"One: this is a jury trial. As such, there are twelve jurors, "
No this is a civil trial. Twelve is not a specified number for the jury. IIRC this trial actually has nine.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing particularly unhinged about it. Apple wants to keep its options open about which witnesses to call in the limited time remaining to them, which makes a lot of more paperwork for the court. The judge is irritated because Apple cannot possibly call all of those witnesses, and is insisting that Apple make up its mind in advance.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't matter whether 50 cents worth of your shiny new Samsung toy goes to Apple, or vice versa.
I think you underestimate the seriousness of this issue to these companies. This isn't about tiny license fees. Apple is ultimately aiming for a complete sales ban on most (all?) Samsung smartphones (and then HTC). A few years ago Apple fans were proudly shouting that the iPhone had 70%+ of the smartphone market, and was growing by 200% to 300% every year. They don't talk about market share these days - now they brag about profitability - and the reason is that the iPhone market share is falling, and is down to 32%. The Samsung Galaxy phones are widely popular - UK sales data show the S2 and S3 outselling the iPhone every month except April 2012 - and if you check the "Android fragmentation" graph [businessinsider.com] you will see that Galaxy devices (GT-x) alone comprise a huge proportion of the Android market.
Apple executives are terrified that what happened with the desktop market - Apple initially gaining huge market share, and then falling to below 5% - will be repeated in the phone and tablet markets. And in a completely free market, that is what would probably happen, since competitors will produce lower price products with similar capabilities and over time erode market share of the dominant manufacturer. Thus the obvious answer is to try and avoid the dangers of the free market by asking the government to stop your competitors from being so competitive.
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Informative)
A few years ago Apple fans were proudly shouting that the iPhone had 70%+ of the smartphone market
[cite needed] The iPhone has never been more than 20-30% of total smartphone sales. See here for a glimpse of 2010 [1] and 2011 [2] numbers - none are are even as high as the 32% you are quoting (from where?). Fact is, Android (particularly Samsung) have replaced Nokia, RIMM and Blackberry, not to mention Windows mobile/phone devices. iOS has never been stronger - and neither has Android.
Apple executives are terrified that what happened with the desktop market - Apple initially gaining huge market share, and then falling to below 5%
Unless you never lived the 80's you know this isn't true - Apple pioneered with their AppleII, but IBM always had the corporate market which they basically gave away to Microsoft due to poor agreements on software licenses. Apple's share has never amounted to a large percentage of computing device sales.
Apple has always been about profits and not marketshare.
[1] http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/16/iphone_drops_to_23_8_smartphone_market_share_android_jumps_to_17.html [appleinsider.com]
[2] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/iphone_and_android_gain_marketshare_through_february/ [macobserver.com]
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:5, Informative)
The iPhone has never been more than 20-30% of total smartphone sales.
Perhaps, but what I actually said was that Apple fans *claimed* it was higher, and they would link to some page like this [arstechnica.com] as evidence ("If you look at this January 2009 data, The iPhone was actually less than half of a percentage point away from owning 70 percent of the mobile browsing market.") or "iPhone grabbed 72% of smartphone market share in Japan" [analytica1st.com] or "iPad owns 96% of enterprise market and iPhone share climbs to 53%" [bgr.com]. And even now we are seeing stuff like "Apple's iPhone Has Staged A Monster Comeback, Android Is Now Dead In The Water" [businessinsider.com]. Yes, a platform that with almost a million phones being activated every day is apparently now "dead in the water". Those Apple marketing guys are good at getting their message broadcast.
Apple's share has never amounted to a large percentage of computing device sales.
According to this [roughlydrafted.com], Apples market share in 1980 was 15%. Okay, that is "huge" on the scale of all PC clones combined, but it beats out the market share of individual manufacturers [wikipedia.org] like Dell and Lenovo today. This article [lowendmac.com] says "In 1984, the Apple II had 15% of the market, Apple's best showing ever. (When combined with the Mac, Apple had over 20% of the market that year.)". The same page says that Apple's low point in 2001 was 2.3%. So from a high of 20% to a low of 2.3%... that's a big fall, losing 88.5% of the market, which was my real point.
Re: (Score:3)
TRS-80 was probably the first single company with significant market share. Atari briefly rose to challenge them, along with Apple. Then Commodore and the PC dominated growth until the PC finally dominated everything else in the early 80s.
There's some data here. [jeremyreimer.com]
Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that isn't what Apple is asking for. They are asking for $24 of your new Samsung toy, plus 100% of the profit of Samsung's mobile division. If you were Samsung, would you want to settle out of court when that was the offer on the table?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?
Or smoked a little too much of Apple's icrack.
Watch out for your cornhole. Apple's sure to be after you for using the iCrack brand without express written permission.
Re:Lack of judicial temperament (Score:5, Insightful)
A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.
When both sides deserve it, a fair judge should hassle and berate both sides. Justice isn't well served by tolerating games.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, perhaps she should treat them like children.
When my kids are a pain, annoying, or just outright bad - I don't berate or hassle them, I *punish* them. She should do the same.
Put counsel in the corner (one minute for every year of their age.)
That might work :).
Re: (Score:3)
Lol... "You better pick one thick enough - 'cause if I have to go out and pick it, you're gunna regret it..."
Re: (Score:2)
The judge should keep his head and language cool, so neither of the parties can argue that they were unjustly treated and ask for a mistrial. It is like you bark back at a rude customer, it makes difficult to prove that you were right.
If the judge finds one or both sides deserve it, then he can present charges of "contempt of the court" or whatever fits. The judge is not at the court to get personal satisfaction, but to do his work.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge should keep his head and language cool, so neither of the parties can argue that they were unjustly treated and ask for a mistrial. It is like you bark back at a rude customer, it makes difficult to prove that you were right.
If the judge finds one or both sides deserve it, then he can present charges of "contempt of the court" or whatever fits. The judge is not at the court to get personal satisfaction, but to do his work.
She should really go after the lawyers and ignore the actual parties involved altogether. If the parties argue that they were unjustly treated in this case, they can sue their lawyers.
I do wish that more separation of counsel and client was to be had in the courtroom. If lawyers were penalized for misrepresentation (possibly even with jail time), we'd have more honest lawyers. There's a difference between defending a client you know to be guilty to the best of your ability, and attempting to game the cou
Re:Lack of judicial temperament (Score:5, Insightful)
A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.
Interesting choice of words. So you'd be ok with it if it was just one sided berating? Judges have done far worse to lawyers when they start resorting to court room theatrics like Apple and Samsung. Berating both sides just shows fairness, and that both sides are being asses.
Re:Lack of judicial temperament (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Has your sig been this appropriate before?
On second thoughts, probably every time.
Re:Lack of judicial temperament (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.
Good grief man, have you ever seen any real trials?
It is EXACTLY the job of a judge to ride herd over lawyers on both sides, as they will take whatever advantage they can eek out. You cannot have some mild judge that gets rode over by the alpha personality that almost every trial lawyer exhibits.
A judge must make, then strictly enforce, rules - or else the lawyers will just take over.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean... Judge Judy does that.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I think a great many legal issues could be solved if judges would just look over the case, decide it doesn't have merit and tell the prosecutor to GTFO out of here before I hold you in contempt.
Just think about the lawsuits that generated things like "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly" on Superman underwear...or (due to the McDonalds lawsuit) coffee cups everywhere stating "Warning: Contents H
Re: (Score:3)
Only further supports my crazy conspiracy theory from two weeks ago [slashdot.org]
Judge is intentionally dragging this out, and ensuring both sides have plenty of ammo for appeals. My unfounded conjecture is that she's getting kickbacks from both Apple and Sony. Additionally, she could be sharing a bit of profit from the lawyers involved, who will be employed for a long time, including the many MANY appeals that are sure to stem from this case.
Re: (Score:2)
So tell us all about your vast experience that informs your scholarly opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lack of judicial temperament (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Invalidating as many patents as possible is best for everyone. A settlement just means Apple can sue someone else for the same stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Make the losers pay for the winner's legal bills and a lot of the meritless crap won't even be around to clog the courts in the first place. For there would be a strong incentive not to waste the court's time on a bullshit case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then, when a corporation can afford millions in lawyers and an injured consumer can afford next to nothing in comparison, nobody will be willing to sue. Because, if you lose, you'll owe the company that injured you millions on top of the initial injury. And the corporation, with the huge legal team, has a better chance of winning.
That only works when both sides, at the beginning of the suit, are of equal financial standing. Which is the rare case in our legal system. It sounds great on the face of it, b
Sorry ... can't do it. (Was:Please ignore...) (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> You don't mod stories, you mod posts.
Right. So when someone says "mod story", it's a pretty good bet that they used it as short hand for "mod posts in the story".
> There is no reason to believe you are any more or less likely to be biased than anyone else, so there is no reason to prohibit modding posts, even when they are related to the story you submitted.
What he said was nothing about prohibiting modding. In fact if modding your own story was prohibited then he obviously would not have had to pos
Re:Please ignore... (Score:4, Informative)
LMAO. I checked /. before I left for work and didn't want to be tempted. I feel it was a mater of personal integrity not to mod posts in a story I submitted. I knew I would be tempted so I posted just before I hit the highway. It's better to remove temptation before you act and personally I try to conduct myself in manners of personal integrity no matter how big or small. Funny thing is I work in the financial industry and many of my peers would see this shameful, apparently so do many on /.
Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, Apple has 4 hours left to give any of their arguments. They gave her a list of 75! witness that she had to read and familiarize herself with overnight. Even apple themselves said they would only get 20 of the witnesses on the stand in 4 hours.
To recap.
4 hours
20 planned witnesses
75 objections to review.
That's straight up bullshit.
They are being unprofessional, she is simply taking them down a peg.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I personally fail to see why it's a big deal, and I understand that a time limit is a time limit, all she would have to say is "you need to cut this list down to only the witnesses you plan to present", not "you wouldn't submit this unless you were smoking crack".
My op
Re: (Score:2)
Why would either side be considered unprofessional for naming more witnesses than they need?
Almost four times as many witnesses as they could possibly question?
Re: (Score:2)
all she would have to say is "you need to cut this list down to only the witnesses you plan to present"
That's what the point of Apple submitting this list was all about in the first place. She had asked that the first time and they gave her a list of 20 witnesses that Apple believed they were going to bring to court.
She told them off. Unprofessional or not, she could have done much worse to Apple's lawyers for trying to waste her own as well as the courts' time. I think it's a welcome change for this case, and is probably one of the reasons Koh remained as judge for it. This needs to be a quick, no-nonsense,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Regardless of which side it favors, this is very unprofessional behavior coming from a judge presiding over a very influential case that could result in millions, even billions, of dollars in damages.
Firstly, the suggestion that you should get a better class of justice if you have billions of dollars to argue over is truly vile and despicable. Either these sort of comments are acceptable by a judge or they are not. The wealth and claims of the parties is irrelevant to that.
Secondly, to answer your question, Lucy Koh worked at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a Palo Alto, California law firm as a litigation partner representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matter
Re: (Score:2)
the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin
You're right. It is a misuse in reference to a fixed interval that is elapsing. It would be correct if she was granting additional allotments of time, but was losing the inclination to continue doing so. Her patience is wearing thin though, and I certainly don't blame her. She should squeeze both parties' balls even harder.