Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No that is not what I said at all. Before you accuse groklaw of bias maybe you should go back, read the post I actually wrote, and then analyze how exactly you could come to the conclusion that I believe that the juror should ask the judge not to interrupt or ask questions.
This is the way he should have answered: "Yes. I have been involved in three cases. Two in 1993 and one in 2008". Instead he screwed up and only talked about the 2008 case. To summarize my last post: If he'd just said that he screwed up the answer and didn't want to interrupt the judge to tell her then thats fine. Instead he tells us that he deliberately did not disclose that information because of a ten year disclosure limit that is nowhere to be found.
That is ridiculous. There is no reason why a person is required to answer in such a manner. The person started explaining themselves and the judge chose to run with it and not properly follow up. That is all there is to it.
The man directly admitted to willfully withholding information in an interview for a reason that cannot be verified at this point. You seem to be willfully ignoring that fact
Yeahhhh...good point. I guess you could say it's one reason among many why this case needs to be retried.
Sorry, but Pam is the same she's always been. Of course, since you didn't "side" with SCO back then, then you were not as "harmed" by her opinion as you are now with her comments about Apple.
Stop picking sides in fights and little jabs and opinions won't matter to you, you'll just gloss over them.
----------
The man directly admitted to willfully withholding information in an interview for a reason that cannot be verified at this point. You seem to be willfully ignoring that fact
Let the courts decide. In the end, marksman can scream all he wants, it's up to Koh or the 9th circuit to judge on this.
----------
Just like she had an axe to grind with SCO, with Microsoft, and tons of other litigious bastards that want to limit competition in the technologies markets. We've known for the last 10 years she's an open source proponent and opposes its adversaries.
ANd I think this is supposedly the issue here. You have to follow the judges instructions as well as your juror's instructions. In this case he could not answer for ever and for the last 10 years only at the same time.
Do we even have a source on the 10 years thing ? Why do people keep coming back to it ? It seems to me it was made up on this very forum and now people are stating it as fact.
If Judge Koh is taking it under advisement, seems to me it's not as clear cut as some of you guys make it sound.
If Judge Koh is taking it under advisement, seems to me it's not as clear cut as some of you guys make it sound.
It was not something that was fabricated by the forums but a statement made by the jury foreman.
In other words, there's no official source on the 10 years. No court documents, no transcripts of hearings, etc... And with the fact this same foreman made up tests for prior art that are pure figments of his imagination and can't seem to keep his mouth shut in the media, seems to me everyone shouldn't put so much emphasis on that whole 10 years if that's the source uh ?
Some courts have prospective jurors fill out a jurors written questionare prior to the jury selection process. This questionare is considered a legal document which also must be signed.
If such a questionare was filled out it does not necessarily mean its going to be mentioned about its contents in the court transcripts.
All that will be reviewed by the judge.
If such a questionare was filled out it does not necessarily mean its going to be mentioned about its contents in the court transcripts.
All that will be reviewed by the judge.
They will be public documents.
Why can't you accept that there is no proof of the 10 years timeframe?
Simply because I don't have the time or resources to get a hold of or review all the documents in the case to say such proof does not exist.
Fascinating?
It'll be really interesting to read what happens when the judge actually makes a decision based on her consideration. Nothing near so interesting as the conjecture that some folks craft so carefully here I'm sure, but probably a tad more valuable to those of us wondering.
It'll be really interesting to read what happens when the judge actually makes a decision based on her consideration. Nothing near so interesting as the conjecture that some folks craft so carefully here I'm sure, but probably a tad more valuable to those of us wondering.
Someone quoting an actuall fact!! Wow, I am deeply impressed!!
Seems like most of the post here are just plain hearsay!
You are kidding, right? You try to argue against something there is a transcript of, with something there doesn't seem to be one. So in effect: Since it is not there, my GUESS must be true.....
You are kidding, right? You try to argue against something there is a transcript of, with something there doesn't seem to be one. So in effect: Since it is not there, my GUESS must be true.....
I believe they also had a conversation about bigfoot and area 51. I know it's not in the transcript - but that doesn't mean it had to be!
Wow, this is logic at it's best! So with your logic: All whites can't play basketball, women can't drive, etc.
----------
I really don't understand you. He was a asked a specific question and didn't answer it correctly. The judge has to assume that he told everything, otherwise they would still be picking jurors, right?
----------
love it!
You are kidding, right? You try to argue against something there is a transcript of, with something there doesn't seem to be one. So in effect: Since it is not there, my GUESS must be true.....
I think people are confused, such as yourself, on what I'm trying to say. I'm not necessarily going against what is in the transcripts but rather what may not be shown in them.
Transcripts are only a recording of spoken dialog and don't cover things like written legal paperwork or electronic documents. Just because we don't see it as a part of the transcripts doesn't mean it does not exist as a written document somewhere.
In a trial like this generates quite a lot of documents.
Yep, you can see a list here, and even click on the PDFs to read them (motions, rulings, court orders, oppositions, replies, etc..) :
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=AppleSamsung
We know there are more than court hearing transcripts, a lot of the lawsuit is done through motions and few get actual hearings.
Now, you made a claim, you say "it could be in a document", you know what ? You want to state your claim as fact, you get to find the source and back it up, otherwise you're stating an opinion or hearsay, not actual verifiable facts.
And before you ask : No, it's not up to us to prove you wrong. You stated a fact, you get to back it up.
Damnit, man. You know you're not supposed to talk about that. You're really starting to earn a reputation in the NSA as a prime source for intelligence leaks.
We were talking about you the other day at the Company picnic down at the secret FEMA reeducation camps underneath Denver International, and...oh shi...
Goddamnit, now you're making me do it.
As usual, you and your Samsung posse always seem to take everything I say as a fact rather then conjecture, then its on you.
I would rather wait to see if other facts not brought up in the transcripts, rather then relying on a bunch of armchair lawyers who think they know any and all inside knowledge about the case.
Perhaps you treated that like a fact and you were the armchair lawyer who thinks that know any and all inside knowledge about the case