Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 25, 2013, 12:03 AM   #26
Mystic386
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
If Mirror Worlds took Apple to Court and won an award of $625.5 million, and Apple appealed and the ruling was overturned and then Mirror Worlds went to the Supreme Court and the SC said game up, and this took 5 years then ....



what did the lawyers on both sides earn in total?


Clearly there is a winner in this case.
Mystic386 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 04:35 PM   #27
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneMadRssn View Post
Wow... where do I start? Lets try the difference between criminal and civil court. In criminal court, the government is accusing someone, and they stand to face a punishment which harms their liberty in some way (their freedom or their purse usually). To make it difficult, we make it hard for the government to do that and give them a really high hurdle. In civil court, private parties accuse eachother, and they stand to just lose some money. When only money is involved, the standard doesn't have to be as high, and it varies depending on specifics.
You're only describing what is different. It's pointless. I already know that. Your explanation for having less severe standards for civil court boils down to "it's only money" and that's ridiculous when a lack of money can RUIN a person's life. I fail to see why civil court cases should be allowed to ping-pong while criminal cases end when a person is found innocent.

Quote:
OJ wasn't found guilty or anything in civil court, he was found liable for a death. Murder (criminal) and wrongful death (civil) are two very very different things. Wrongful death can be simply negligent (for example, you spilled some oil in your house that you didn't clean up, and then a guest slipped and fell and died.) For wrongful death, the liable person must repay someone, usually the familly, for the wrong. Murder is the highest form of homicide, it's only for someone who is really super culpable and morally reprehensible. For murder, we take away the guilty person's freedom for a long time usually. (not commenting on the OJ case specifically, he was totally guilty, we all know it). So as an example, in OJs case, the government didn't reach the hurdle to take away his freedom for doing a super morally reprehensible thing. The victim's familly did reach the lower hurdle of holding his responsible for the cost they suffered.
This is a total crock and exactly what I'm talking about. Either OJ killed them or he didn't. If he killed them, then he should be liable. If he didn't kill them, he shouldn't be liable. Like it or not, there's no other possibility in this particular case. He didn't leave the stove on accidentally and that lead to the house burning down with them in it. SOMEONE shoved a knife in Nicole's back. Now the laws of physics dictate either it was his arm or someone else's arm (possibly at his request, but that's another matter and still a criminal trial). The very IDEA that you can have a SEPARATE civil trial and come to a DIFFERENT CONCLUSION to the criminal trial is what I'm getting at here and what you apparently cannot seem to comprehend. The fact you accept things how they are is neither here nor there. I'm simply giving my opinion it's BS based on plain logic.

Quote:
Appeals aren't retrials. Appeals happen when the lower court judge got it wrong. Sometimes appeals are sent back to the lower court with instructions to fix one aspect of the case. For example, a case can have many questions to answer, and only one of those questions is sent back to answer again.
Yeah, the biggest thing anyone can get wrong is the result of the trial (i.e. if someone did it and gets off scot-free or didn't do it and gets prison or worse yet the death penalty when they're innocent). Unfortunately, that happens a lot these days due to the justice system being based on making MONEY rather than finding the TRUTH. If you have a high priced lawyer with a reputation for almost never losing a case, you have an example of the truth being buried because statistics dictate that every client they get cannot be innocent. This, along with things like basic needs and health care are the reasons this country is screwed up. Nothing is more important than the truth and that just goes out the windows with the high priced lawyer for hire system we have in place. Everyone is NOT equal under the law. Money goes a LONG way in the existing system and that's just wrong. You can disagree, but it won't change the facts of the matter.

Quote:
tl;dr: You're irritated because you don't understand what the courts do.
I'm irritated because the system is rigged on the merits of money rather than the truth. I'm irritated because everyone sues at the drop of a hat these days and if you cannot afford to defend yourself, you're screwed even if you are right. Big companies do this all the time to smaller companies. Just sue them to oblivion and watch them fall before the result is ever determined since they cannot afford the lawsuit while the big company has lawyers on retainer they might as well use to sue.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 05:01 PM   #28
oneMadRssn
macrumors 6502a
 
oneMadRssn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
You're only describing what is different. It's pointless. I already know that. Your explanation for having less severe standards for civil court boils down to "it's only money" and that's ridiculous when a lack of money can RUIN a person's life. I fail to see why civil court cases should be allowed to ping-pong while criminal cases end when a person is found innocent.



This is a total crock and exactly what I'm talking about. Either OJ killed them or he didn't. If he killed them, then he should be liable. If he didn't kill them, he shouldn't be liable. Like it or not, there's no other possibility in this particular case. He didn't leave the stove on accidentally and that lead to the house burning down with them in it. SOMEONE shoved a knife in Nicole's back. Now the laws of physics dictate either it was his arm or someone else's arm (possibly at his request, but that's another matter and still a criminal trial). The very IDEA that you can have a SEPARATE civil trial and come to a DIFFERENT CONCLUSION to the criminal trial is what I'm getting at here and what you apparently cannot seem to comprehend. The fact you accept things how they are is neither here nor there. I'm simply giving my opinion it's BS based on plain logic.



Yeah, the biggest thing anyone can get wrong is the result of the trial (i.e. if someone did it and gets off scot-free or didn't do it and gets prison or worse yet the death penalty when they're innocent). Unfortunately, that happens a lot these days due to the justice system being based on making MONEY rather than finding the TRUTH. If you have a high priced lawyer with a reputation for almost never losing a case, you have an example of the truth being buried because statistics dictate that every client they get cannot be innocent. This, along with things like basic needs and health care are the reasons this country is screwed up. Nothing is more important than the truth and that just goes out the windows with the high priced lawyer for hire system we have in place. Everyone is NOT equal under the law. Money goes a LONG way in the existing system and that's just wrong. You can disagree, but it won't change the facts of the matter.



I'm irritated because the system is rigged on the merits of money rather than the truth. I'm irritated because everyone sues at the drop of a hat these days and if you cannot afford to defend yourself, you're screwed even if you are right. Big companies do this all the time to smaller companies. Just sue them to oblivion and watch them fall before the result is ever determined since they cannot afford the lawsuit while the big company has lawyers on retainer they might as well use to sue.
This is way too much to parse.

If you really care, please read up on the difference between criminal homicide and civil wrongful death.
For criminal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
For civil - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim
Basically, you can be liable for a death and not be guilty of the crime of murder. Those two things can happen, they are about two very different things. Culpability versus liability.

Consider that the reason expensive lawyers always win is because they pick and choose their clients; they only pick the cases they know they are likely to win. Sometimes because they know the client has a good defense (alibi, or what have you), or sometimes because they know the prosecutor is an idiot. Consider that public defenders do try, but they are so incredibly overworked and stretched thin it's impossible for them. These are major issues, you're right to be skeptical about the system.

You're correct to be pessemestic about our current court system, but some of your ideas of it are misguided. Our court system is in poor shape, but it's not for the reasons you give.

Otherwise, this is way off topic for this tread now; nothing to do with patent disputes anymore. If you want, PM me to continue this conversation.
__________________
13" Macbook Air (2011) 1.8ghz i7 256GB 4GB | iPhone 5 (Sprint) 16GB
oneMadRssn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2013, 07:44 PM   #29
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
I have no interest one way or another in the result here, but HOW it happens does irritate me. Frankly, I think the whole US Court system is a load of horse manure. You think you won a case, but NO.... someone overturns it...and overturns it again and again and again and again.... WTF!?!? In criminal cases where you've won your innocence, that's called DOUBLE JEOPARDY and it's illegal (as it should be).
In a criminal court, whether you lose or win, both the prosecution and the defendant can appeal. There have even been cases where both sides appealed (prosecution thinking the sentence wasn't high enough, defendant claiming their innocence). It's not double jeopardy and quite common.

Same here; after a court case you can appeal and it goes to the next higher level (if it is accepted by the higher court). Usually the case will only be accepted if the next higher judge decides that a clear error was made.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
You're only describing what is different. It's pointless. I already know that. Your explanation for having less severe standards for civil court boils down to "it's only money" and that's ridiculous when a lack of money can RUIN a person's life. I fail to see why civil court cases should be allowed to ping-pong while criminal cases end when a person is found innocent.
In civil cases there's often the situation that damage has happened, and the question is who pays for it. Let's say a car accident happened, I say it was your fault, you say it was my fault, but obviously one of us (or both) has to pay for the damage. The judge can't say "you're both innocent" because the damage is done and it won't get repaired if nobody comes up with the money.

Or let's say I claim that my neighbour intentionally caused major damage to my house. If that is true, he should pay for the damage and go to jail. As far as the paying for the damage is concerned, if you apply "not paying unless proven guilty" to my neighbour, that applies "paying unless proven innocent" to me. Which I would consider highly unfair. The damage caused could also ruin the victims life.

As far as OJ Simpson is concerned, a civil court had to decide whether it was more likely that he murdered two people, and the civil court said "yes". That's quite a strong statement, and not made lightly. The wrong decision wouldn't just mean that the guilty person goes free, it also means that the victim isn't compensated for their damage. There isn't just one side here, there are two, and for each side the wrong decision means financial damage, so it is just that the court decides what is more likely to be correct.

Apart from that, OJ Simpson moved to Florida after being convicted because the Florida laws allowed him to have a good life without paying a penny of the 10 million dollar compensation that he was ordered to pay. As a result, when he wrote his biography and tried to sell the rights, the murdered man's parents outbid everyone else and bought the rights for several million dollars - which they then subtracted from the money they were owed.

Last edited by gnasher729; Jun 25, 2013 at 07:56 PM.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 01:47 PM   #30
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
In a criminal court, whether you lose or win, both the prosecution and the defendant can appeal. There have even been cases where both sides appealed (prosecution thinking the sentence wasn't high enough, defendant claiming their innocence). It's not double jeopardy and quite common.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_...#United_States
and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal
and: http://www.anderegglaw.com/can-the-p...appeal-a-case/

It IS double jeopardy if the court case was concluded (i.e. not declared a mistrial) by a jury with an acquittal. The ONLY exception to this is if the person was not in jeopardy in the first place (e.g. bribing a judge at a bench trial). This is Constitutional Law (5th Amendment) and pretty darn clear.

Quote:
Same here; after a court case you can appeal and it goes to the next higher level (if it is accepted by the higher court). Usually the case will only be accepted if the next higher judge decides that a clear error was made.[COLOR="#808080"]
Appeals are for the defense only unless a finding was made before trial (e.g. judge throws case out of court before trial and new evidence surfaces to warrant a trial; in other words you have to have a trial in order for double jeopardy to apply).

Again: http://www.anderegglaw.com/can-the-p...appeal-a-case/

Quote:
In civil cases there's often the situation that damage has happened, and the
question is who pays for it. Let's say a car accident happened, I say it was your fault, you say it was my fault, but obviously one of us (or both) has to pay for the damage. The judge can't say "you're both innocent" because the damage is done and it won't get repaired if nobody comes up with the money.
The judge can find both at fault and declare no damages awarded. Regardless, how do you figure that civil trials deserve endless appeals from either party based on that? What is your reasoning that double jeopardy should only apply to criminal cases and not civil as well? The reasoning for the law in the first place was the stress/strain it puts on a citizen to fend for their life or livelihood. I don't see why someone getting sued shouldn't fall into that category the same way a fine or prison sentence would.

My whole point and opinion is that they should not be treated differently and the civil court system should be respecting the judgments made in the criminal court system. If a verdict of NOT GUILTY is returned for a 1st or 2nd degree murder case, how can there possibly be a civil case at that point? They weren't tried for negligence, but murder. Not guilty says it all and IF they got it wrong in the criminal court, then that is a failing of that system, not an excuse to run it over with another court. A court is a court. The Constitution makes no distinction between criminal court and civil court. That sort of thing that happened with the OJ trial is a Constitutional violation as far as I'm concerned. It also makes the entire justice system look bad when it contradicts itself.

To get back to the whole point of my comment. Here you have a company that is cleared of all charges of patent violation in regards to Apple. They are free and clear. No, they are NOT because apparently the findings of the first judge DON'T MEAN SQUAT. You get appeal after appeal for these types of cases until it finally ends up at the top anyway and so why even bother to waste the taxpayer's time and dime handling cases that obviously will NOT be decided in the lower courts (not now not ever). It's a bad, wasteful and in my opinion pointless system. Why not just eliminate the lower level courts as waste? The judges further up clearly pay no mind to the judges underneath them anyway. At best it means the lower judges are completely INCOMPETENT as they got the entire case WRONG. At worst, it means we let single individuals decide the fates of potentially millions based on their own personal opinions (as we see more and more partisan biased cases in Supreme Court rulings of 5/4 and 4/5). A criminal court requires a consensus. The Supreme Court only needs one person to shift the entire result and when all the decisions are partisan ones, it really looks bad for that wing of government's credibility, but then I suppose that's really just a sign of the times (certainly Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low).
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2013, 05:21 PM   #31
Verbatim Cookie
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
levied a fine of $625.5 million
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
the $625 million fine
A fine? ಠ_ಠ
__________________
Remember the Liberty!
Verbatim Cookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Asks Supreme Court to Curb Patent Abuse Amid New $2 Billion Patent Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 100 Feb 7, 2014 05:20 PM
Apple and THX Work to Resolve Speaker Patent Dispute Outside Court MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 23 Jun 6, 2013 12:40 PM
Supreme Court Copyright Case eric/ Politics, Religion, Social Issues 24 Nov 1, 2012 10:13 PM
Republicans Appeal DOMA Case to Supreme Court leekohler Politics, Religion, Social Issues 119 Oct 28, 2012 09:35 PM
HTC wins patent case vs Apple. Judge: Swipe-to-unlock (also galaxy ban) is obvious gladoscc Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 0 Jul 5, 2012 04:26 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC