|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
Samsung could have objected to everything past the 40-page limit with a simple
note at the end of their motion to that effect. Why should you expect any other
result than this one when you are explicitly told *DON'T DO THIS*, and you do it
any way?
Apple got the 'extra' motion because those are things which are specifically
allowed by law, which can only be asked for *after* the trial. Forcing Apple to
put those into the same 40-page limit would have been unfairly limiting Apple in
comparison with what Samsung is allowed.
If Koh *doesn't* cut off Apple's arguments beyond the predetermined limit,
*then* Samsung has something for the appeals court. If she does, they don't.
If she were being *really* strict, she could have considered *this* motion the
*one motion* Samsung was allowed. Instead, she said, "This isn't the
motion you're allowed to file. It's denied. Get working on the right one."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
