decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Judge Koh Denies Samsung Motion to Strike ~pj | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Surely the judge isn't stupid?
Authored by: AlexWright on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Doesn't she know that this is setting herself up to be
smacked down by the appeal courts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Denies Samsung Motion to Strike ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT
The way i understand it, she doesn't have to do anything and will not get in
trouble for it because the whole purpose of the appeals court is to make sure
the decisions she makes are appropriate. So, in effect, as long as she follows
the rules, it doesn't matter whether she gets the correct ruling based on the
evidence that exists or not.

BUT

Isn't there a line that one shouldn't cross
when it comes to blatantly showing favoritism in your court room? or is this
honestly just a case of her inner-self showing blind loyalty and not realizing
it?

~ukjaybrat - ianal

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread here ... pls->please
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT
;-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT
:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Any chance she is denying on procedural ground so Apple cannot raise that when appealing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
IANAL, but is it possible that she is rejecting on procedural ground to make
sure that Apple would not be able to bombard her (or the complain in the
appeals) that she did not follow the proper rejection procedure?

Also, if Apple got smack down on Oct 19's JMOL, wouldn't it be a more serious
blow than today? If Judge had granted Samsung's motion today, Apple would had
time to amend its next motion (Presumably its JMOL on Oct 19 as well)

By now you and I know that Apple's lawyer looks like clones of RIAA's and patent
trolls.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Denies Samsung Motion to Strike ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT
"1 The Court will entertain only one post-judgment motion
for relief per side, not including Apple’s motion for
permanent injunction and willfulness enhancement.
Accordingly, any party who wishes to move for relief
pursuant to Rules 52(b), 59, or 60, shall incorporate such
motion(s) into its Rule 50 motion."

So why is she allowing Apple additional motion practice?
Why is this Koh, giving Apple the moon, the stars, the universe, and the
mulitveres, but Samsung a tiny little
cell. She is off her rocker here. I guess she is all in on
Apple, so she doesn't really care.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Begs the question....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT
Why is it up to Samsung to use its limited pages to point out to the judge that Apples exceeded its page limits?

Shouldn't the judge enforce her own limits?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The appearance of impropriety
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT
While the judge may have her reasons for ruling as she has.
The appearance that she is ruling against Samsung for personal preferences is so
strong it has me as well as others
questioning if it is in fact happening. I think she is in a
bad position and seriously needs to look at what she is
doing. Her actions, while they may be right are going to
effect how people perceive they way justice is reached in a negative fashion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

But, What Will She Do?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT
But has the judge said how she views Apple's filing? After all, the 30 page
limit is her own rule. She can deny Samsung's motion and still cut off
everything after 30 pages in Apple's filing on her own account. I don't think we
know the answer to that yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How she would punish violators
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT
It's a bit funny watching people who are assuming that she is blatantly allowing Apple to violate her own rules. Isn't the real problem the fact that her rule has no teeth? The punishment for including extra stuff was just to ignore the extra stuff. That's all! Why assume that she has done something wrong (or that she will get in trouble with the appeals court) before there is some indication that she failed to ignore the extra stuff that she said she would disregard?

Here is what she said (my emphasis):
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.
I think it may be fair to criticize her for not specifying a worse punishment, but she didn't. Now she should do what she said she would do -- ignore any extra stuff.

BTW, just because Samsung said the extra stuff was extra doesn't necessarily make it so. I suspect that they were mostly correct, though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )