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
No, I'm not forgetting at all | 155 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No, I'm not forgetting at all
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:58 AM EDT
There's simply a deadline beyond which you'd need an
exceptional reason to introduce something new that probably
needs to involve it not being available earlier (eg "Apple
tried to hide this and we only just found out").

What *appears* (again, we don't know - this is speculation)
to have happened is that Samsung simply didn't submit this
as evidence until after the appropriate deadline and Koh
didn't accept that they had a good reason for being late.
That's not unreasonable or the court being unfair/biased.
Yeah Apple has abused this to make statements Samsung must
be furious about not being able to show as misleading at
best and it's bad for the trial that these designs weren't
allowed, but why weren't they submitted on time? It might
be a mistake/oversight and that's really unfortunate, but if
so it's self inflicted... blame Samsung for not following
the rules, not Koh for enforcing them. Again, if that's
what happened. We don't know - maybe it was something else.

[ 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 )