|
| Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
It's probably left as an exercise to the lawyer.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
She chucked ECF No. 2283, she's still holding ECF No. 2287,
and saying "Gimme good reason I shouldn't chuck this too".
Disclaimer: I don't have the stomach to search either for merit ...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
Apple has filed quite a number of docs that Judge Koh has had to examine.
This would be a chance to get Apple to file a doc Judge Koh can
ignore...
;)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
Hmm. Good catch. I'll see if I can figure
it out.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 04 2013 @ 06:57 AM EDT |
Apple moved for an April 3rd confreence.
ON APRIL 3rd, the judge denied the motion for an April 3rd
conference.
ON APRIL 3rd, the judge gave Apple leave to file a
supplemental document on why there SHOULD be a conference on
April 3rd, which (regardless of WHEN Apple submits it) is a
losing proposition, because April 3rd is already in the
past.
What's she going to do - rule on April 10th that the April
3rd conference is on after all? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
