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
I wondered the same thing | 217 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The judge didn't pervert the jury's decision
Authored by: yorkshireman on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 05:47 PM EST

The judge didn't pervert the jury's decision as the foreman did.

He simply pointed out to the attorney the reason why what he was saying made no sense.

By getting these comments into the record he made sure that even if the attorney ignored his advice and later tried this argument with less geeky appeal judges it was doomed to failure (the second they read the transcript).

 

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ouch - but ...
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 06:02 PM EST
Don't play devil's advocate on Groklaw. Just
be for real. But your comment makes no legal
sense. Just so you know.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ouch - but ...
Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 06:49 PM EST
Mr. Boies had ample opportunity to refute the judge. In
Samsung v. Apple, no such opportunity existed while the jury
was behind closed doors.

What should have happened in Samsung v. Apple is the jury
should have raised a formal question in the courtroom where
the judge and lawyers could state their positions.

Your argument is moot

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ouch - but ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 06:50 PM EST
Bear in mind that judges are allowed and expected to do research beyond what the
lawyers tell them--especially in matters of law, of course, but also in matters
of fact.

The difference between a judge and a jury here is that a judge is expected to
know what information should be discarded as irrelevant, and what should be run
by both sets of lawyers for additional input (as we've seen judges do in both
Apple/Samsung and Oracle/Google trials.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I wondered the same thing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 07:16 PM EST
I wondered the same thing at the time the court reporters noted this. This goes beyond looking up case law which I'd expect from a judge.

It begs the question: can a judge also be an expert witness?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ya - but ...
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 10:32 PM EST
The Judge is an expert in the law and is allowed to express his opinion of the
law and his opinion of the evidence when appropriate.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Boies' claim to be stupid doesn't change the fact that he's wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 11:42 PM EST
Just because a lawyer claims knowledge isn't common doesn't make it so.

Consider this: the rangeCheck problem is identical semantically, logically, and
structurally to telling a 2-year-old not to walk off the edge of a cliff.

Does the rest of the world have to assume their own stupidity is as great as
Boies claims for himself? That this problem is beyond their capacity?

I think there's enough people who've pulled their kids back from the edge of
cliffs, or even just curbs, that the vast majority could be brought to the
understanding that this is not a genius-level problem.

Does the judge have the responsibility to ignore his own experience? To allow
the claim of stupidity to bulldoze the courtroom clear of truth?

No.

[ 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 )