|
|
|
| Authored by: nslm on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
It's worse than that though, they've got to argue over the extra length *and*
argue the extra points that Apple made while exceeding the length limits.
Because of course if Samsung don't argue the point Apple may just be given the
point anyway...
She did say she'd strictly enforce the 40 page limits, we'll see if she does so
*prior* to Samsung having to defend against them...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
Many people seem to be ignoring the possibility that Samsung shouldn't be
complaining in the first place. Apple was apparently within its page limits in
the actual filing. Samsung's filing says:In violation of that Order,
Apple submitted more than 40 pages of declarations containing additional
argument and evidence, much of which was either not referenced in the brief at
all, or only discussed in a single sentence of the brief. Just
because Samsung said "In violation of the order" doesn't meant that it was in
violation of the order. Apple would, no doubt, say that it wasn't in violation
of the order.
Not only that, the order doesn't say that anything extra
would be stricken. Instead it says that it would be disregarded:The
page limits set forth herein will be strictly enforced. Any argument that is
not
explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits will be
disregarded. Any
supporting documentation shall be for corroboration
purposes solely and shall not
be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s
page limits. Any citations to
the record must include the relevant testimony or
exhibit language. So far, I'm not convinced that there is a problem.
There wasn't any page limit on the declarations and any additional arguments and
evidence that would be in the declarations is supposed to be disregarded, so
extra stuff should just not matter. If only one sentence in the brief was needed
to make a point, then Apple shouldn't be punished for not writing more. Not
mentioning something at all might be a problem, though.
One possibility
is that Samsung doesn't want Apple to be able to say anything in its reply that
wasn't in its original motion or at least it doesn't want Apple to point to
anything in its reply that it didn't point to in its original motion. Samsung
may also want to make sure that the court really disregards what it said that it
would disregard. By saying that it should be stricken, they are in effect saying
that Samsung would appeal if the court uses it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 10:51 PM EDT |
Yes, I'm nitpicking.
"Begs the question" doesn't mean makes me
wonder and it doesn't apply nearly as often as raises the question
does. (Either of those would have been fine.) It is misused so often, you can't
go by how other people use it.
It's really an archaic term that comes
from formal debating. Certain logical fallacies "beg" a question relevant to the
fallacy. This page
seems to do a good job of explaining the difference between correct and
incorrect uses of the phrase.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
