|
|
| The Apple Appeals Court Hearing, as MP3 |
 |
|
Sunday, June 11 2006 @ 06:27 PM EDT
|
Here's a real treat. Groklaw member dburns arranged for us to get the audio of the hearing before the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District Court in the case Jason O'Grady v. Apple (commonly known as Apple v. the Bloggers). The Order is here that resulted from this hearing.[UPDATE: Here it is as Ogg, as promised.] I'm sure you'll understand why the court ruled as it did, when you hear the arguments. It's also an opportunity to witness what appeals are like. And you'll see why lawyers always tell you that you can't predict the outcome by the questions the judges ask. Here the questions when the first lawyer is speaking might give you an idea that the court intended to rule for Apple. It didn't. Note for example that one judge asks in a tone of voice that might sound negative about whether a case called Mitchell (Mitchell v. Superior Court) applied. The lawyer says, "Absolutely," and there proceeds a discussion. You'll notice in the eventual ruling, the court cited that case. I think you'll see here also how hard it is to be a lawyer. He has to be ready to answer any question, so he has to prepare to cite cases and laws no matter what the court asks about. It's very nerve-wracking, because you get so little time to speak, you have to have it all inside your memory bank. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: dahnielson on Sunday, June 11 2006 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
| To avoid adding any typos, I will stop typing nwo. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Sunday, June 11 2006 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
..
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why use NON-FREE MP3? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 12:27 AM EDT
- Microsoft Blogger to Resign - Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- software patent case in the UK - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Very interesting - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Canadian intellectual property survey - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Re Windows Genuine Advantage - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- New term: SCOliosis - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 01:33 PM EDT
- NSA wiretapping case - Say what? - Authored by: Jude on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- SCO Makes Strides Toward Mobile Strategy - Authored by: DustDevil on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- "Microsoft says malware found on about one in 300 PCs" and I breed pigs with wings. - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 03:23 PM EDT
- Buckman sues AutoZone - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Another ex member of Preston and Gates - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Speaking of GrokDoc - Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 02:16 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 11 2006 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
Well, from what we've learned from groklaw:
Lawyers are not brain surgeons.
Lawyers are not rocket scientists.
Lawyers do not need to be ethical.
Lawyers are not constrained by the facts.
Sadly, my already low estimation of lawyers has greatly diminished since
following the SCO antics.
As we've seen here, they can spew any amount of <explitive deleted>
without sanction by the courts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 11 2006 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
Can anybody explain to me why are the journalists above the law? I mean, a
person who witnessed something illegal ought to step forward and help to bring
the violator to justice, no?
The whole system is broken: murder and rape cases are being dismissed on
some stupid technicality ("they didn't read me my rights under the miranda
law -
I didn't know that my being stupid can't be used against me!", for
example).
Enlighten me, please - how is this possible?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 11 2006 @ 10:17 PM EDT |
"Nerve-wracking" is a completely accurate description of
this proceeding. One of the court judges just mercilessly
unloads on one of Apple's attorneys about 3/4 into the
hearing, castigating the attorney over the fact that the
court does not exist to manage the day to day affairs of
Apple Computer. I could almost hear the attorney's tail
tuck between his legs as he meekly whimpered his back back
to his table.
--
Tony O'Bryan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Sunday, June 11 2006 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
The appeals process seems to be far more inquisitorial than the trial process.
This is just an observation, but one that struck me when listening to an appeal
in the Federal Court of Australia.
There is much similarity in process (if not in law) in our contries.
Having said that, this is the first audio I've listened to from a *real* US
hearing.
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Opinion:
Apple, reporters, and judicial cowardice
Examining the
court ruling against Apple in the product leaks case.
By
MacJournals.com
The Court of Appeals for California’s sixth district
recently ruled that Apple may not serve subpoenas to discover who leaked
information of an upcoming product to Macintosh news and rumor sites. While
hailed as a victory for online journalists and bloggers — one that extends
California’s reporter’s shield to online writers of all stripes — MWJ’s careful
review of the ruling reveals that it does no such thing. What’s more, in the
process of reaching its decision, the court committed so many errors in logic
that they’re hard to count.
click on the link above for the rest of
the article.
Personally, I agree with the analysis. Apple's case
has often been misrepresented. Apple has never claimed that O'Grady is not a
journalist, just that his activities are not covered by the shield law.
Unfortunately, it seems that now there is precedent that NDA's aren't worth the
paper they are written on.
But then again, that's just my opinion, I
could be wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
| It's very nerve-wracking, because you get so little time to speak, you have
to have it all inside your memory bank. Enjoy.
This part of the system
seems a bit broken to me. Why not let them have a
laptop/pda/assistant-with-the-same to look up the relevant information rather
than have seem how much they can cram inside. The current way seems to run the
risk of being more of a how-many-digits-of-pi-can-you-remember parlor game than
way of accomplishing justice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
I've read a fair number of court transcripts, here and elsewhere, but not an
appeal transcript I think.
Usually the judge(es) seem to only interject a few occasional questions.
I'd imagined appeals would be pretty much the same - just looking at the facts
again in the same orderly manner.
But here the victims, sorry, lawyers seemed to get about 15 seconds to speak
before being pinned to the spot in a barrage of questions by (what seemed to me)
some very tech-savvy judges.
Putting aside the veracity of the arguments, who was in the right/wrong and who
won or lost: the lawyers on both sides deserve a lot of respect for taking that
kind of punishment on the chin and not even missing a beat!
Makes me hope that some part of SCO v IBM goes to appeal if this is the kind of
gladatorial entertainment we could get out of it!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
