|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 01:17 PM EST |
Maybe because you are not experienced in this
field? Because trust me when I tell you that
things are a lot more layered and complex than
you seem to realize.
Lawyers are deep. It's almost never what it
appears and not a lick more.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 03:46 PM EST |
Because the problem doesn't seem to be that the Japanese court won't grant
the discovery. It's that if the Japanese court grants the discovery their rules
don't allow them to order Apple to respond to the discovery requests. Absent
anything else, the Japanese court might be inclined to not grant a discovery
order they can't enforce anyway. But now Samsung can hold up this ruling and say
"The US courts can enforce your order if you grant it, but we have to
have your order in hand before we can ask them.". Now Apple can't argue that
it's pointless to grant discovery that the Japanese court can't enforce, and the
court's more likely to grant discovery where the local unenforceability's the
only problem. Samsung will of course still have to make their case for the
discovery being legitimate except for the enforceability issue, but they're
prepared to do that anyway. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
