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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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 have a problem with this transcript | 148 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I have a problem with this transcript
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 | # ]

Where's the court appointed independent expert?
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 | # ]

The bias appears obvious
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 | # ]

The bias appears obvious (more)
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 | # ]

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 )