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
How big the cases are? | 107 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Koh Agrees to Hear Oral Argument Dec. 6 on Jury Misconduct and When Apple Learned of It ~pj
Authored by: Kevin on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:16 AM EST
It's the way that just about all court proceedings work. One party asks the
court for something (Motion). The opponent puts up his best arguments against it
(Response). The original proponent gets to answer the arguments (Reply). Once
all three pieces of paperwork are in, there may or may not be oral arguments.
Those follow the same general form: direct - response - rebuttal. The chief
purpose for oral arguments is so that the judge can ask questions.

In this instance, what Judge Koh is saying is that she'll allow oral argument
without first having Samsung file its reply brief. That's most likely a good
sign for Samsung. If she isn't allowing Samsung to answer Apple's written
arguments, that would be manifestly unfair to Samsung - and an issue for appeal.
My guess is that she's planning to tell Apple, "you don't have to answer,
but I shall construe a failure to answer as admitting to Samsung's
argument."

Or else she's planning to dismiss this entire line of inquiry and say that it
isn't her business to second-guess a jury and the motions to that effect from
both sides are all dismissed.

---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Koh Agrees to Hear Oral Argument Dec. 6 on Jury Misconduct and When Apple Learned of It ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:18 AM EST
Her other cases could literally have people's lives hanging on them.

Compared to that "One Trillion Dollars" isn't much more than a song.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How big the cases are?
Authored by: Wol on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:04 AM EST
Probably not that big.

The problem is the volume. I get the impression :-) that as Judges fall off the
bench they are not being replaced. So there are probably fewer Judges than there
are supposed to be. Add in the American penchant for litigation, there are
probably more lawsuits than are provisioned for, even with a full complement of
Judges.

So Koh is probably doing a workload that should have two Judges provisioned for
it ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cutting down on "ping-pong" filings.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 11:12 AM EST
After a claim, response, and counter-response all the basic facts should be
settled, but there might be some contentious point that will require dozens (I'm
not exaggerating here) of exchanges to sort out, which is why they move to oral
arguments, where the judge can rapid-fire ask questions, get immediate
responses, and then ask for further clarification.

The same kind of thing happens in engineering, you trade emails for a bit, but
if at a certain point there are issues that just aren't settling out, you have a
chat, voice, or in-person meeting to hash it out.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )