|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
Judges never lie, they only indulge in terminological inexactitude!
Jon[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
In criminal trials the instructions will say something like, if the evidence of
guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt the jury must find the defendant guilty. This
ignores jury nullification where the jury can return a verdict of innocent
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, perhaps usually in public
interest cases.
In this civil trial, the jury largely appears to have done the opposite of
nullification for a number of reasons discussed here and elsewhere. They found
Samsung 'guilty' of infringement when the evidence, some suppressed, and the
law, had it been properly explained to and interpreted by the jury, would have
'required' a verdict of 'innocent'. The judicial process has failed the
defendant again.
I note that in Gary McKinnon's case, it was a political process, not a judicial
one, that produced the right result eventually.
---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
Makes sense that Apple were so desperate to not allow any prior Samsung phones
to be admitted as evidence. It'd have been far, far harder to argue their
design in unique and Samsung infringes if evidence showed that Samsung were
using their own designs.
But with Apple, only today, getting the Design patent for the iPad (with the
joojoo tab coming out first!) it's... certainly odd.
The judge's actions in all this continue to confuse me. I don't know if she's
monumentally incompetent, biased to protect her share value, or is just
preparing the case for the appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
"If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the overall
appearance
of an accused Samsung design is substantially the same as the overall
appearance
of the claimed Apple design patent, and that the accused design was
made, used,
sold, offered for sale, or imported within the United States, you
must find that
the accused design infringed the claimed design."
The article
explains that this statement is, in fact, false. The judge must
have known that
her statements was false because it was incomplete. That makes
it a
lie.
The jury is supposed to decide matters of fact, not matters of
law.
The judge explains to the jury exactly what their answers to certain
questions will mean with regard to the matters of fact they have to
decide.
If the judge's explanations make the jury answer questions that are
not relevant to the case, that just means that the answers are not useful and
will hopefully get tossed by the appellate court instead of being reinterpreted
as answers to questions that should have been asked instead.
I don't see
that the judge is lying by telling the jury how he expects them to
interpret his instructions, even if this interpretation happens to not help with
finding justice. But that is a "matter of law" question, and thus not the jury
is accountable for any mistake in that but the judge himself.
It may be a
nuisance if the judge is wasting everyone's time by letting the jury work on
decisions that are ultimately not relevant, but it is not lying but rather
procedural error. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|