|
Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 07:29 AM EST |
The wording appears to indicate the matter isn't ripe until Apple has made
what ever statement on when they found out about the lawsuit.
In Apple's
opposition to Samsung's motion to compel (Apple to disclose when they knew about
the lawsuit, Apple Refuses
to Answer Samsung's Q Re When It Learned About the Foreman's Seagate Litigation
~pj Updated), Apple tried to make the issue about "whether the objecting
party waived jury misconduct objections" as a basis for not disclosing
"Appleās attorney work product".
You could easily get the impression a
billion dollars rode on this or something. I'm guessing Apple isn't done being
snarky just yet. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:06 AM EST |
You'd have thought Apples continuing tactics would rub the
Judge up the wrong way, there's no real reason why they just
couldn't have cooperated. I can't see the Judge calling it a mistrial but its
got to be pretty close given the verdict was
so one sided its just farcical.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|