Apple wants Samsung case dismissed with winning verdict because of leaked e

[evo_spook]

erm ? yes she is? she is obviously getting something out of it because she dismisses evidence no other judge would dismiss ... to late to submit evidence? as long as evidence is correctly dated or archived in some way its never to later (and yes that is the law)

Unfortunately, in this case it actually is. Sorry to break it you are 100% incorrect.

1. This judge did not even dismiss, only upheld it, the pre-judge dismissed it because.

2. Samsung submitted it AFTER the allotted discovery period.

3. After that it is disallowed, as they are given months to submit and the opposite side are allowed to view and prepare for it, they can not just produce evidence afterwards.

4. Samsung screwed up.

[Boz]

Unfortunately, in this case it actually is. Sorry to break it you are 100% incorrect.

1. This judge did not even dismiss, only upheld it, the pre-judge dismissed it because.

2. Samsung submitted it AFTER the allotted discovery period.

3. After that it is disallowed, as they are given months to submit and the opposite side are allowed to view and prepare for it, they can not just produce evidence afterwards.

4. Samsung screwed up.

Obviously none of that is really true considering there are MANY cases where evidence introduced later was admissible if it had a pretty big effect on the trial which this undoubtably does.

[evo_spook]

Obviously none of that is really true considering there are MANY cases where evidence introduced later was admissible if it had a pretty big effect on the trial.

You are talking criminal not civil. Are saying you know more about the law then the entire US court?

[Boz]

You are talking criminal not civil. Are saying you know more about the law then the entire US court?

No.. I'm talking similar cases like this.

[evo_spook]

No.. I'm talking similar cases like this.

In its release, Samsung had complained that it was being stopped from presenting important parts of its defense case, that would show it had independently invented its own phones. Today, Koh emphasized that the exclusion of the evidence?an issue she had heard and re-heard?was Samsung's own fault. "Had Samsung timely complied with its discovery obligations, there would be no exclusion," she said.

It was Samsungs own fault, no fanboy bias will change that fact.

[BoredBozirini]

Hopefully Samsung loses this case. They cannot even argue without dirty tactics, I hope the judge gives them something to whine about.

[techbeck]

Hopefully Samsung loses this case. They cannot even argue without dirty tactics, I hope the judge gives them something to whine about.

Dirty tactics? Trying to get evidence admitted to the court and being denied is dirty? Yes, some evidence was leaked to the press but the jurors should be sequestered so they cannot see any news/press that will influence their decision in the case. I have several family members that were on a jury for a few days to a week. They were not allowed to talk to anyone about the case or view anything that could influence them.

[BoredBozirini]

Dirty tactics? Trying to get evidence admitted to the court and being denied is dirty? Yes, some evidence was leaked to the press but the jurors should be sequestered so they cannot see any news/press that will influence their decision in the case. I have several family members that were on a jury for a few days to a week. They were not allowed to talk to anyone about the case or view anything that could influence them.

After they were allowed, so its a dirty tactic. And there is a difference between criminal and civil court.

[techbeck]

Well, apparently the judge interviewed each juror and none saw anything that apple released. So really not an issue where the jurors are concerned.

[BoredBozirini]

Well, apparently the judge interviewed each juror and none saw anything that apple released. So really not an issue where the jurors are concerned.

It is still wrong.

[techbeck]

It is still wrong.

And thank you for pointing that out to me. If I had anything to dispute with you, I would of quoted your post. What I posted was for everyone to see that the jury is not an issue.

And it is wrong think/want Samsung to lose just because of this. But APple's request was denied by the judge as well.

[Original Poster]

You are talking criminal not civil. Are saying you know more about the law then the entire US court?

why should that make any difference ? its still in regards to a crime no matter what way you look at it US legal system is so crooked, corrupt and pointless why do you even have it ... its only there to protect the rich

[(Spork)]

Hopefully Samsung loses this case. They cannot even argue without dirty tactics, I hope the judge gives them something to whine about.

must be and brainwashed apple employee

[evo_spook]

why should that make any difference ? its still in regards to a crime no matter what way you look at it US legal system is so crooked, corrupt and pointless why do you even have it ... its only there to protect the rich

Its the way it works, just cause they favourite side tried to side step the rules and not play fair doesn't suddenly make it wrong.

The legal teams have months to submit evidence before trial, both sides get to see each others evidence so they can prepare defenses against it. Samsung wanted to introduce new evidence 9 days after the submittal period had ended, the period was months long. They screwed up or they did it on purpose.

[FloatingFatMan]

It has nothing to do with being versed in law.. the judge before she became a federal judge worked for a company representing Apple and she's a patent judge. So in both cases she is "embracing" and supporting the ridiculous patent system Apple abuses and she most definitely already has history working for Apple.

That she once worked for Apple should have automatically disqualified her from presiding on a case involving them. There's clearly something amiss here.

[evo_spook]

That she once worked for Apple should have automatically disqualified her from presiding on a case involving them. There's clearly something amiss here.

I'd wait for more info on that then relaying on something from Boz.....

[FloatingFatMan]

I'd wait for more info on that then relaying on something from Boz.....

A quick check shows that she DID indeed work for a company who have Apple as a major client, and that also has and equity in Apple. IMO, that should be sufficient to disqualify her from presiding on any cases involving them.

[techbeck]

I'd wait for more info on that then relaying on something from Boz.....

Or, you can take a few seconds and do a Google search and figure it out for yourself.

[Boz]

Or, you can take a few seconds and do a Google search and figure it out for yourself.

Not to mention that I named the company and her history earlier in the thread too.