decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
act against what court order??? | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
act against what court order???
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
Actually, Samsung abused its discovery privileges by taking evidence, private internal Apple documents that the judge excluded from trial, and trying to confuse and stir up the public by publishing those documents, and their favorite (and unopposed) interpretation of them.

The judge may not have agreed to Apple's demands to sanctions, but she was none too pleased with Samsung for its childish behavior. Don't mistake a choice not to impose sanctions with approval.

And please check your sanctimonious "first amendment" argument. Imagine I sue you, and find out something about you that I can craft into an embarrassing story. The judge in the case rightly excludes it from evidence, so I decide to pimp the story to the press to harass you instead, am I exercising my "first amendment rights"? No, I'm engaging in discovery abuse. So is Samsung.

If you want Samsung to win so badly that you'll try to rationalize this kind of behavior, you really need to look at your motivations -- and you may find that you're on the wrong side of the case.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )