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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 11, 2012, 08:26 PM   #101
JS82712
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapnJackGig View Post
The only thing Samsung is guilty of is making better phones than Apple.
Your fandroid is showing.
JS82712 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:27 AM   #102
macsmurf
macrumors 65816
 
macsmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
You really think it is the juror's responsibility to insist the judge not interrupt and ask questions? The guy started answering the question, the judge jumped on board and asked several follow ups on that circumstance and then pointedly moved on.
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.
macsmurf is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:51 AM   #103
marksman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
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.
marksman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:59 AM   #104
macsmurf
macrumors 65816
 
macsmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
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
macsmurf is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 03:10 AM   #105
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacalis View Post
It's anything buy moot. If Samsung can show that the jury was biased because of material information that was with-held from the court, the decision will not hold. If the foreman is found to be deceptive and biased, and thus not acting in the courts interest, the jury finding will not matter.
Yeahhhh...good point. I guess you could say it's one reason among many why this case needs to be retried.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 03:58 AM   #106
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
Pamela Jones built in excellent reputation over many years. Unfortunately, the reality today is that when Apple gets mentioned, she totally loses it. And if a previously excellent site has turned like Groklaw did, it is not just a matter of not reading it.
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
Just reading the latest information on this case she clearly has an axe to grind when it comes to apple.
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:42 AM   #107
the8thark
macrumors 68030
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
I would say it does matter what the court instructions said. Whats the point in having court instructions if they are not meant to be followed. That would confuse the jury on what their job is suppose to be.
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.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:48 AM   #108
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 07:18 AM   #109
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
It was not something that was fabricated by the forums but a statement made by the jury foreman.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 07:40 AM   #110
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
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 ?
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 08:10 AM   #111
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
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.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 08:16 AM   #112
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
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.
They will be public documents.

Why can't you accept that there is no proof of the 10 years timeframe?
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 08:24 AM   #113
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
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.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 08:44 AM   #114
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
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.
Ah, it is only a question of faith.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:29 AM   #115
cyberddot
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in a forest
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.
__________________
Before you ask, have you tried MRoogle today? No...really

/salute e
cyberddot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:26 PM   #116
RobertoCravallo
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
You are not telling the truth.

"THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....21002201632770
Someone quoting an actuall fact!! Wow, I am deeply impressed!!

Seems like most of the post here are just plain hearsay!
RobertoCravallo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:37 PM   #117
RobertoCravallo
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
Do you have any evidence that no such time limit did not exist or that court instructions are required to be part of the transcript?

Laws for each state vary so to say, what one state might do, does not always apply in another state.
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.....
RobertoCravallo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:47 PM   #118
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertoCravallo View Post
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!
samcraig is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 03:01 PM   #119
RobertoCravallo
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr666 View Post
There is no problem on me. I have plenty of real basis to apply this reasoning. That's the way of doing business here in East Asia. There is very little innovation, plenty of copying. I'm not saying Sony or Nikon are copying, but the general idea of business in East Asia is to copy whatever others design. Intellectual property protection is nearly non-existent. The whole region reeks of Micky Mouse copies, Apple bite logos on sports shoes, Windows 7 Ultimate for one dollar on every street corner in broad daylight. I suspect it is you who is totally devoid of reason.
Wow, this is logic at it's best! So with your logic: All whites can't play basketball, women can't drive, etc.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
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.
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?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
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!
love it!
RobertoCravallo is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 03:45 PM   #120
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertoCravallo View Post
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.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 04:06 PM   #121
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
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/i...e=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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 04:25 PM   #122
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
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!
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.
Renzatic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 04:30 PM   #123
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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/i...e=AppleSamsung 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.
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.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 04:33 PM   #124
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
As usual, you and your Samsung posse always seem to take everything I say as a fact rather then conjecture, then its on you.
Samsung posse? Really?

...and you were doing so well.
Renzatic is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 04:34 PM   #125
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
It was in the jury instructions. I believe the transcripts don't mention the 10 year limit when the judge asked the question. But either way I don't see how that matters. It was implied to the jury of the time limit when asking of any court cases in which they participated.

Putting the time limit in the jury instruction, then not adhering to that instruction is leading to jury confusion.

If that is the case, its not the fault of the jury but that of the courts and/or the judge.
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
Oletros is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Responds to Samsung's Request for Information on Trial Jury Foreman MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 33 Jan 16, 2013 01:07 AM
Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 400 Oct 3, 2012 07:41 PM
Jury Finds Largely in Favor of Apple in Apple vs. Samsung Trial, Awards More than $1 Billion in Damages MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 1383 Sep 5, 2012 03:46 PM
Proposed Jury Form for Apple v Samsung Trial kdarling Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 4 Aug 15, 2012 12:49 PM
Judge dismisses jury trial for Apple and Motorola case kdarling Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 1 Jun 8, 2012 09:41 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.

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

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