|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:54 AM EDT |
He has just cost Apple a billion
I don't think that
is the right way of looking at it. What he has (I presume) done is to fail at
illegitimately costing Samsung a billion
Which, I would say, is good.
What's bad is how close he came to succeeding. Not something that the court
system should be proud of. A billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon
you're talking real money.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
Is the US the only jurisdiction which has juries in civil cases like this?
Living in England I know that they only have juries in about 4 kinds of civil
claims these days and two of those - libel and slander - are about to lose the
right to jury trial.
There must be a reason why they have been phased out like this here. Perhaps
it's because a judge on his/her own has to publish his/her reasons to be picked
over on appeal whereas - as here - you have to argue that the jury might have
been prejudiced by something or the other?
It would be interesting to know the thinking but I know that this is guaranteed
by the US constitution.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
You weren't kiddin' about the guy needing to shut up and
lawyer up.
It's creepily amazing that this particular bad actor with
this particular baggage ended up on this particular trial,
as though he'd somehow been able to foresee all the way
through to his selection back in the jury pool room to be
able to sit bolt upright in his chair when the pool call
came over the PA with, "Ooh, ooh, ooh! Pick me me me!"
The randomization built into the front end of the process
should've safely disallowed such, of course, but here we
are.
In the ultimate, jury selection is based on the honor
system. This was brought home forcibly to me as I was
ultimately selected for the jury in a criminal trial this
past month. One of the last questions the judge asked of
each candidate during VD was whether they believed that
officers of the law were more or less likely to tell the
truth under oath. Here, those of us saw as finalization of
the jury approached, was an easy out: Anyone who said Yes
was immediately dismissed with thanks by the judge. The
judge less than obliquely alluded to this trapdoor in
thanking those finally selected for their honesty and
citizenship; he knew that by then _we_ knew that we could
have bailed with that same Yes.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:14 AM EDT |
Velvin is a PR disaster. Look, I know that I'm biased, and Velvin really does
show the thought processes that I associate with anyone that favors Apple.
However, if we put my biases to the side, this is still a massive publicity
problem the more Velvin shows just how defective he is. Basically, the more he
talks, the more Apple looks stupid by association. Apple and Velvin's lawyers
need to start feeding him superglue sandwiches to keep his mouth firmly shut![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
I agree with everything, but don't understand the final sentence. What does
"PI" mean? Private investigator?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|