|
|
|
| Authored by: ArtimusClyde on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
From where I see it, they aren't trying to slow it down.
Samsung would rather get to the next appeals process sooner
rather than later, but the point is they are waiting for the
initial appeal to go through so the next trial does not need
to be appealed all over as well. It most likely will be
anyway, but it would be harder to justify things that have
already been appealed and decided to be or not be included
in that trial. Seems a bit like putting the cart before the
horse.
To make an analogy, if I'm an engineer why would I bother
doing work requiring calculations for a bridge, if another
person has not verified that my initial calculations are
correct? What I do next is completely reliant on what needs
to be checked. My choice in steels and concrete, or
dimension would need to be changed if I were wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 11:24 PM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
"one can make the observation that in almost all
civil litigation, the plaintiff wants to speed up the
process, and the defendant wants to slow it down. There are
exceptions, none of which would apply here."
This case is indeed an exception. Apple wants to rule on the
damages NOW even though th3ey won't be awarded them until
after the appeals because they want a PR victory. That is
the only viable explanation for why Apple wants this done
first. a PR victory will buff some shine into the rusted
armor that is their public appearance as of late.
Samsung wants to do the appeals first because it is the
logical order to do things. What is the point in assessing
damages in a second trial if the facts, the number of
devices, and even the patents in which are valid (bounce
back just got bounced)? There are only two possible outcomes
if the damages trial goes first.
1) the planets aling and appeals are thrown out and apple
gets exactly what it won in the first trial, and the damages
trial stands - end of story
2) 1 of a million other outcomes happen and the damages
trial was a waste of time and now a third trial is required
to redo the damages trial. -- this is a giant waste of time
and money -- money the tax payers pay...
so why on EARTH could it be argued that Apple is in the
right here? in regard to "justice delayed is justice denied"
- Justice isn't applied when a ruling is made, justice is
appleid when samsung is forced to pay the money and in BOTH
hypothetical situations, that will occur AFTER the appeals
court... so technically... doing the appeals process first
will expedite the justice... isn't that the crux of Apple's
argument?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:35 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
