|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
- Unfortunately - Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:45 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: alanjshea on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Exactly - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Exactly - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- As I recall it - - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- As I recall it - - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: micheas on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
