My criticism of Samsung's lawyers - not Samsung - is that they filed a document containing a potentially contentious statement with a citation broken in two ways.

Firstly it cited a document filed in error and withdrawn, secondly the corresponding paragraph in the corrected document did not back up the contentious statement.

I did - and still do - consider that to be sloppy lawyering. Absolutely no criticism of Samsung.

I fully admit that in my original post I used the term Samsung for Samsung's lawyers - just like you did in your earlier post. I assumed the context would make it clear. Samsung, the company, does not itself file documents with the court.

I will try to make my concern clear one last time: I am quite happy for people to think I am biased towards Samsung and against Apple. Because at the moment it's true, it's not illegal and I'm not a juror. If, however, someone asserts that I am being paid to support Samsung then I would demand evidence.

Moving back two steps: if you were to tell the world there are press reports speculating that I may have a direct financial relationship with Samsung should I not expect you to be able to produce those press reports?

My concern was that not only was I unable to find the reports referred to by Samsung's Lawyers using the citation in their filing, but - because I was searching on the wrong keywords - I was unable to find anything independently to support their statement.

The motive for my original post was because I believed that - with just the information given - Apple's lawyers could easily devalue Samsung's lawyers' argument and I was hoping someone else could help locate something to support it. If you look in the thread above you can see that PJ supplied the necessary and I think I have made my peace with her.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]