|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
"What's there to fix?"
Judge Koh != Apple's lawyers
Judge Prost clearly directed the "at best incorrect" language at
Apple's lawyers, not Judge Koh. The article says otherwise. Several readers have
pointed that out? Why not fix it?
Regarding PJ's surprise, PJ has certainly been known to to demonstrate mock
surprise and mock outrage before. Why assume it's legitimate this time? Even if
it were legitimate, it was apparently just caused by her misreading of what
Judge Prost wrote. So why leave it there?
How did you read this other bit that PJ wrote: "John Quinn for Samsung
asked this same judge...'Why even have a trial? What's the point?' Do you start
to get what he was saying?" Do you really think that PJ believes that
Groklaw readers are so stupid or ignorant that it's valid to ask if they have
managed to begin to understand what Quinn meant? Either PJ has some incredible
contempt for Groklaw readers or there is some exaggerated attitude there. (I
think it's obviously the latter.) If you don't take what she said there
seriously, why take PJ's "surprise" seriously?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
