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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Don't feel sorry for the shills | 236 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Don't feel sorry for the shills
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 07:33 AM EDT
Don't feel sorry for the shills.

A few unemployed scumbags. Who cares.

You didn't get it, did you? The appeals court may care, since it is not the court's job to prejudice the jurors. And to let them know who paid whom for what kind of marketing lie will be prejudicing them when they are not allowed to look at the lies themselves and thus were not in need of counterbiasing in the first place.

Nobody is feeling sorry for the shills, and it would make good sense to put transparency rulings in place that force shilling agreements in the open. But "the open" and "court-relevant material" are two different things, and jurors are specifically prohibited to look "in the open" for education, and the court should not be required to rely on external sources for forming the judicial opinions.

So in my opinion it is likely that Alsup is overreaching here, and this does not bode well for appeals.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Don't feel sorry for the shills
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT
Please read our comments policy.

And shills, by definition, are not unemployed.

[ 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 )