Apple may not extort a penny from Samsung...

[sygyzy]

I am a lawyer

Hey MotionMan - are you being serious here? Are you really a lawyer?

 

[cheezy321]

As usual, you oversimplify and see things the way you want to.

The issue is you have the Android "guys" debating the verdict with facts and logic, doing things like citing transcripts.

And then you have people like those who got scolded not adding to the discussion and just complaining that the Android "guys" are a bunch of bitchy girls, apologies to Sam from Burn Notice.

A different viewpoint is welcome; debate it. Name calling by itself is counter productive and doesn't add to the substance of the conversation.

I do kind of see your point regarding Koh but the counterpoint to your argument is that some of her trial decisions were debatable. I remember something about excluding prior art due to the amount of time it took Samsung to submit it.

Being a judge doesn't automatically make every decision above reproach. If that were the case, we would have no need for an appeals system.

The bazillions of idiotic things samsung did are not debatable?

How about not submitting the prior art in a timely manner?
How about being so terrible at their job they were asked by the judge if they were smoking crack?
How about not properly vetting out the jurors and finding out that hey maybe this guy shouldn't be on the jury?
How about possibly already knowing the jurors previous lawsuits and still going thru with the trial (keeping it as a smoking gun until after the trial doesnt go their way)?

All of these are just as, if not more valid, debate points than 'Judge Koh is bias!' or 'This juror had it out for a company that is tenuously linked to the trial at hand!'

We all know how shady Samsung is as a company. Only fools would think of them as the 'good guy'.

 

[TerryMathews]

The bazillions of idiotic things samsung did are not debatable?

How about not submitting the prior art in a timely manner?
How about being so terrible at their job they were asked by the judge if they were smoking crack?
How about not properly vetting out the jurors and finding out that hey maybe this guy shouldn't be on the jury?
How about possibly already knowing the jurors previous lawsuits and still going thru with the trial (keeping it as a smoking gun until after the trial doesnt go their way)?

All of these are just as, if not more valid, debate points than 'Judge Koh is bias!' or 'This juror had it out for a company that is tenuously linked to the trial at hand!'

We all know how shady Samsung is as a company. Only fools would think of them as the 'good guy'.

Neither company is a good guy. Apple stopped being a "good" company about the time Jobs came back. The world just didn't notice until Apple had a hit.

Jobs always wanted to take over the world. The first time he had Woz and Hertzfield to temper him. The second coming, he didn't.

Remember, Jobs is the guy who screwed over his best friend in order to pay for a trip to India. Jobs may be dead, but his culture is very much alive.

To your other point: debatable? Sure. Name calling? Obviously not ok. I was trying to answer Toms post regarding bias.

 

[MichaelBarg]

Back to my original point of "Going to jury is a crap shoot". It's clearly in Samsung's favor to try again. People think the first decision was the most idiotic decision ever. I think it goes back and forth between "Samsung's lawyers are idiots" "The judge is an idiot" "The jury are idiots" "Apple cheated". Either way, I'm sure everyone is a couch-lawyer and thinks they could easily present a case that would guarantee a victory.

So yeah, even if Apple's case is solid, it's still going to be a crapshoot at the end of the day.

I'm a real lawyer, and I think there's a tremendous amount of what I can only describe as FUD in most of these discussions. For example the UK case was mostly about different patents, and to the extent it was about the same ones the results were largely the same.

Likewise with respect to Judge Koh, who by the way was a patent lawyer for about a decade primarily representing tech companies before being appointed to the court, in legal terms very few of her decisions are really controversial. Excluding the prior art because it wasn't disclosed during discovery is completely normal for example. Unusual would be admitting it. That's just how the court rules work: there's a time to disclose all your evidence and if you don't your evidence isn't admitted.

Beyond that, some people seem to say that she should somehow have prevented it from getting before a jury. If that means anything, I guess it means that they think she should have granted a motion to dismiss. Given the evidence it is essentially certain that if she had done that the Federal Circuit would have reversed her.

It is true that in a couple cases she has been overturned with respect to preliminary injunctions. Both to Apple's benefit and Samsung's benefit at different times. That's not terribly surprising though. Preliminary injunctions are more serious and more difficult than most legal decisions, and much more likely to be overturned on appeal than most types of decision.

Overall I have to agree with MotionMan. Looking for bias in the judge here is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[TuxDave]

I'm a real lawyer, and I think there's a tremendous amount of what I can only describe as FUD in most of these discussions. For example the UK case was mostly about different patents, and to the extent it was about the same ones the results were largely the same.

Likewise with respect to Judge Koh, who by the way was a patent lawyer for about a decade primarily representing tech companies before being appointed to the court, in legal terms very few of her decisions are really controversial. Excluding the prior art because it wasn't disclosed during discovery is completely normal for example. Unusual would be admitting it. That's just how the court rules work: there's a time to disclose all your evidence and if you don't your evidence isn't admitted.

Beyond that, some people seem to say that she should somehow have prevented it from getting before a jury. If that means anything, I guess it means that they think she should have granted a motion to dismiss. Given the evidence it is essentially certain that if she had done that the Federal Circuit would have reversed her.

It is true that in a couple cases she has been overturned with respect to preliminary injunctions. Both to Apple's benefit and Samsung's benefit at different times. That's not terribly surprising though. Preliminary injunctions are more serious and more difficult than most legal decisions, and much more likely to be overturned on appeal than most types of decision.

Overall I have to agree with MotionMan. Looking for bias in the judge here is barking up the wrong tree.

Awesome, good to see some law experience contributing to the conversation. I hope people take time to take note of your comments.