|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 07:20 PM EST |
In the worst case the judge is looking for a quick way out, noting really
important did happen, so let's forget those fillings.
But there is, I think, something contradictory in the attitude of Apple. If
noting important did happen, why that question to Samsung about when they
learned about "nothing"? Why all that reluctance of Apple to reply
itself the same question? They make it themselves important, while at the same
time saying nothing happened.
Can you accuse Samsung to hold this back with the aim to destroy the jury
verdict if it is not convenient to it, and the same time say nothing happened
that could destroy the jury verdict?
Anyhow, could replying that question force Apple to produce documents that would
add new information about the attitude of the foreman?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|