|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST |
The sum of events in this case smells of "We don't need no stinkin' laws.
They're guilty as sin and we're gonna teach 'em a lesson." This is not
justice, rather, it holds the American justice system in disrepute on the global
stage.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 12:55 PM EST |
PJ,
I think you're fundamentally missing the point. As you're
aware, when you're close to a case, of course you want it to
turn out a certain way. But that's why there's rules. You
could re-cast your complaint in all sorts of scenarios-
Any system that would keep a lawyer from telling us where
his client buried the body a the missing child should be
jettisoned!
Any system that doesn't allow someone to recover for their
injuries just because they missed an arbitrary deadline to
file is unjust!
Any system that excludes evidence that I think is really
important just because the judge thinks it is prejudicial is
stupid!
And so on. But there's a reason for these rules. I can
guarantee you that after every single jury verdict, one
party is 100% certain the jury got it wrong. But we don't go
there for a reason. Absent something outside the jury
(bribery, extortion) or bringing outside *facts* in (not
legal theories), we don't go there.
Most people know that juries will take shortcuts, screw
stuff up on occasion, and occasionally split the baby. Good
litigators will form their arguments knowing this and trying
to compensate for it.
Samsung will do best with the usual appeal route- as a
matter of law, we win because of... No reasonable jury could
find X, Y, Z. The court must review A, B, C de novo. Etc.
Claims that the jury or judge had it out for you don't play
well in the appellate courts.
Which goes to a more fundamental issue; one of focus. As a
matter of legal analysis, if you looked at the two orders
released (re: injunctions and the jury), this was an amazing
day for Samsung. I am quite sure the attorneys were
celebrating. The new trial motion regarding the jury never
had a snowball's chance in hell, but the injunction- that
was an uphill battle, and they prevailed. That was massive.
I read some of the alluded to commentary. I think that FOSS
was wrong- it's not like this was a given, and the judge's
order was unheard of; OTOH, it was still more likely than
not that injunctions would follow after the verdict finding
willful infringement, so this is a major victory, and if
upheld at the appellate level will be a good thing in the
patent wars and hopefully bring these parties to a
settlement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
