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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
At this point, Apple is maximizing the cost to Samsung, at least in a local sense | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:30 AM EST
it sounds like Apple lawyers are in a bind, They really have three choices,

they can admit that they know about it before the verdict but did not come
forward (and tick off the Judge)

or

they can admit that they did not know about it, and that they have no valid
reason to say that Samsung should have known. (and loose that point)

Or

they can convince the Judge that they dont have to answer.




[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:33 AM EST
Who is "Apple" with respect to that question? Figuring that out in
detail, as well as making sure one gets the correct answer from all the relevant
people in a best effort and conscience manner is a lot of work.

If "Apple" were a single person and mind, yes, there would be little
excuse for not just answering.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Reasons for Apple's attorney's refusal to answer
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 08:01 PM EST
Reasons for Apple's attorney's refusal to answer

1) Increase billable hours. Hmm, runs the risk of getting either the client or
the other party mad about padding the bill. Since somebody ends up paying the
bill, this is probably not a good idea.

2) Playing mind games with Samsung attorneys. Might be fun to mess with them,
but will probably result in sanctions.

3) Know the answer will reveal more problems. Might be worth taking the risk if
answering the question results in more trouble.

I kinda vote for #3 with a side of #2.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

At this point, Apple is maximizing the cost to Samsung, at least in a local sense
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 08:55 PM EST
It is also maximising its time to come up with a good spin

It might also have decided it needed to guarantee that it could appeal,
rather than Samsung, again maximising Samsungs costs, including
distracting top management and leadership.

Also, the right set of facts might just get Apple a change of legal
representation, involving still more delay to Samsung....for example if Some
non-lawyer at Apple corporate wrote an e-mail to Apple legal impeaching
Mr Hogan saying they knew it but were advised not to disclose it and did
not until after Hogan shot off his mouth....

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Refuses to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 08:12 AM EST
Sleight of hand?

They make a big play about this to distract Samsung from seeing what they are
really afraid of.

What that maybe I don't know.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • You could be right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 11:00 AM EST
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 )