|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
As you might recall, we were watching, waiting, begging, prodding SCO to produce
anything, at any time, that would show what their case was about. Something not
under NDA or Greek obfuscation or "millions of lines" exaggeration.
It doesn't seem like the reaction to Samsung is one of "Is *that* all
you've got?"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: trevmar on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
When Apple brought up that early Samsung product during their opening arguments,
IMHO, and to the best of my knowledge, the Judge should have allowed Samsung to
argue the point raised by Apple.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hey PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
I'm not sure, but I think that Apple bought up the F700 so late in the discovery
process that Samsung didn't have a chance to bring up its countering evidence in
time. I think that if Apple actually questions a witness about it, Samsung
should be able to introduce this evidence on rebuttal, as I think that according
to the rules you are allowed to use evidence not introduced during discovery
when rebutting something introduced during the questioning of a witness by the
opposition at trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hey PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT
|
|
|
|