Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 15:20 Kitkoan
Panickd wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 13:10:
Cutter wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 12:12:
No, it sounds like Apple bought off the judge. She's shut down Samsung at every turn. It's beyond obvious at this point. Samsung will easily win on appeal however.

Isn't this the case where the judge told Apple's lawyers they must be smoking crack and told them that she wouldn't be hearing anymore testimony from one of their witnesses? I don't think she's necessarily pro-Apple as much as she just wants the case over with because she knows no matter who wins it's not going to be settled in her court room. If Apple wins, Samsung appeals. And if Samsung were to win you can bet your ass Apple will be appealing. This whole case is just killing time and racking up lawyer fees and this judge knows it. I'm sure that she just wants to move on to a case that's going to matter at this point.

From what I've understood, for the most part that is all she has really done against Apple.

For Samsung, she has banned two of their products for sale before the trail was even started (something almost unheard of), banned them from mentioning that the legal threats/issues happened after Steve Jobs famously said he would go thermonuclear against Android and they happen to be the biggest Android seller, threated them for releasing to media evidence she refused that she declared would be made a public document and has zero effect on the case since the jury isn't supposed to read/watch about these kinds of things since it could taint their views(and if she did this in front of her jury would have tainted her own jury, not she if she did that though), banned Samsung from using any images of Steve Jobs, allowed Apple to pick and chose Samsung phones from the past to "re-write" history and haven't let Samsung use any of their other phones to defend against this (again, look at the images that went to the press, etc...

This seems more like her going "See, see, I'm not biased even though I went against the other one, in private away from the jury, with a matter that doesn't effect the case in any way and at the end. But but I still went against them, see"
Avatar 56087
*automatically refuses to place horse heads in anyone's bed*
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
    Date Subject Author
  1. Aug 17, 12:04 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Prez
  2. Aug 17, 12:12 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Cutter
  4. Aug 17, 13:10  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Panickd
>> 6. Aug 17, 15:20   Re: Morning Legal Briefs Kitkoan
  9. Aug 17, 16:05    Re: Morning Legal Briefs Panickd
  11. Aug 17, 18:52     Re: Morning Legal Briefs Cutter
  12. Aug 17, 19:52      Re: Morning Legal Briefs space captain
  16. Aug 18, 09:39      Re: Morning Legal Briefs Julio
  3. Aug 17, 12:26 Re: Morning Legal Briefs Verno
  5. Aug 17, 14:51 Re: Morning Legal Briefs eunichron
  7. Aug 17, 15:28  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Cutter
  8. Aug 17, 15:47   Re: Morning Legal Briefs eunichron
  10. Aug 17, 17:49    Re: Morning Legal Briefs eRe4s3r
  13. Aug 18, 00:56 Re: Morning Legal Briefs eRe4s3r
  14. Aug 18, 04:54  Re: Morning Legal Briefs netnerd85
  15. Aug 18, 04:57  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Bhruic
  19. Aug 18, 14:57   Re: Morning Legal Briefs eRe4s3r
  17. Aug 18, 09:41  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Julio
  18. Aug 18, 12:52  Re: Morning Legal Briefs Bard


Blue's News logo