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
That would be much too cheap! | 155 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Unfortunately
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
Unfortunately, judges and legislators in the U.S. seem to be moving toward the
position that speed outweights all other considerations. Remember, SCOTUS ruled
that speed and finality of an election overrided the need to count votes
accurately.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Agreed.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
It's as if the judge pre-decided the issues and/or had a prior engagement
re:time.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That would be much too cheap!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT
You can't let the Jury hear all the evidence. They might simply decide the case
on its merits which would make trials quick and efficient and put good lawyers
out of work.

Litigants with lots of money have a right to spend it on lawyers to try to to
influence the result. The role of the court is to provide a mechanism to allow
this. That is why you can't want juries hearing all the facts. If they did then
they would simply decide on the basis of the facts and all that money would go
to waste. It is much better if jurors are kept mostly in the dark and fed
carefully selected pieces of information. That way the parties can spend their
millions of dollars on lawyers arguing about which pieces of information the
jury is going to be allowed to hear. This system provides good steady employment
to thousands of hardworking lawyers. That after all is the main purpose of the
courts.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Thanks - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:38 AM EDT
    • Thanks - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT
      • Thanks - Authored by: paf077 on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 07:18 AM EDT
      • Thanks - Authored by: jonathon on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
Technicalities are there for good reasons
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT
See: BS&F's crazy stunts and that's *with* the current system. There's a
very good reason why you can't keep introducing new claims/evidence at any
period you want or just ignore process. Otherwise why not just dripfeed
evidence in and delay cases indefinitely?

It's entirely possible Samsung simply messed up and really were late in
presenting evidence. If so that's both very unfortunate and surprisingly
incompetent (which would certainly be unusual for QE). Maybe that's not
happened - as PJ pointed out *we don't know*. Deciding it must be bias/a need
to totally change how trials work etc is jumping to wild conclusions. We don't
know.

I also see where the magistrate was coming from (when was Apple's motion filed?
When was Samsung's? These aren't one day apart... note the wording "but
that Samsung *had* always been free to ask for a similar sanction against Apple,
*at the appropriate time*"), but think it was the wrong decision and agree
with Koh - Samsung probably didn't file on this earlier simply because expect
this level of absurdity from Apple.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Let them present it
Authored by: nola on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT
You need to understand the term "Perry Mason moment",
and it's clear that you do not.

Courts have rules, and they have them for good reason.

You need to make your case why the rules should be thrown out.

[ 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 )