|
Authored by: BJ on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 05:59 AM EST |
Do I attach John Cleese's voice to Judge Koh's part, and Eric Idle's voice to
Johnsons part and Jacob's part gets Michael Palin?
Or does Koh get Palin, Cleese Johnson, Terry Jacobs? Not to mention a
constellation of Chapman Jacobs, Koh Terry, Johnson Cleese. What about
Cleese Koh, Terry Chapman, Jacobs, Jones and Johnston??
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 12:55 PM EST |
While the Judge noticed a few things, she appeared to fails
to understand that
perhaps both sides were right. Things
change very rapidly which is not
reflected in the hardware
(i.e., the boxed version) such as software updates
made at
the factory (just see the issues with preproduction and
initial
hardware units like Samsung's SSD firmware
bug
where reviewers got a buggy
preproduction firmware
that
trashed the drive but the bug is fixed in
production models)
or due to the network
provider.
There really needed an
independent expert as Apple should
have provided the exact phone used for the
screenshots well
before the trial started. That would have stopped
many
of the frustrations of this Judge that led to her
treat Apple as always correct
and Samsung as incorrect.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 01:08 PM EST |
<blockquote>
'Apple have photoshopped evidence before to make it appear
the devices
look closer than they really are, I don't put it beneath
them to tweak a device
in this case either'
</blockquote>
Didn't they do this exact thing once before about the Glaxy
Tab 10.1... didn't they photoshop the 10.1 to make the
dimensions look exactly like the ipad?
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: imperial on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:08 AM EST |
Further evidence of bias against Samsung. Judge Koh as denied Samsung's request
for a new based on the conduct of Hogan. In a decision reflecting Apple's
submission almost word for word, she denied any chance of Hogan lying in the
voir dire because he repeatedly promised to do the job as juror correctly. And
even if he was lying Samsung should have known. Also Samsung apparently 'maybe'
did know but kept him on there because they though he would be biased in their
favour.
As far as the extraneous evidence introduced into the jury room, he didn't do
that either because he promised not to do that. Even if he did, we are not
allowed to look at that so we will not even speak to the other members of the
jury about his self admitted conduct.
Ah America! The best law you can buy (I won't call it justice as clearly there
is none to be had)
After being slammed by the Appeal Court once before over her conduct in this
trial, it surprises me she is setting herself up for another slamming. Surely
there is more to this conduct than her obvious dislike of Samsung's legal team.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|