Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Suggests Apple Is "Smoking Crack" With Witness List In Samsung Case

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the william-f-buckley-might-politely-correct-her dept.

Android 318

infodragon writes "Today in the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case Judge Lucy Koh's patience wore thin as Apple presented a 75-page document highlighting 22 witnesses it would like to call in for rebuttal testimony, provided the court had the time. As those following the case closely know quite well, the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin. As quoted by The Verge as they sat in the courtroom listening in, Koh wondered aloud why Apple would offer the list 'when unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!'"

cancel ×

318 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

At first I thought the Judge was biased (0, Flamebait)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41015805)

in favor of Apple.

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (5, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41015845)

Maybe she just doesnt have any tolerance for stupidity. I doint think she would tolerate you for missing it.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41015867)

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

Or smoked a little too much of Apple's icrack.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (5, Insightful)

xs650 (741277) | about 2 years ago | (#41015899)

in favor of Apple.

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

No, she has just gotten to know Apple better than she did before.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016255)

in favor of Apple.

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

No, she has just gotten to know Apple better than she did before.

No, both sides have been enormous cunts for the entire trial, and she's pissed at both of them for that reason. It got bad enough that if Samsung loses, they're basically guaranteed a full appeal at this point. Probably the same with Apple. So we're almost certainly going to get to relive all this AGAIN! WEEE!

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (4, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41016439)

No, both sides have been enormous cunts for the entire trial, and she's pissed at both of them for that reason. It got bad enough that if Samsung loses, they're basically guaranteed a full appeal at this point. Probably the same with Apple. So we're almost certainly going to get to relive all this AGAIN! WEEE!

This. Since almost the beginning, when Samsung's lawyers started lining up evidence for the judge to strike down, this trial was merely a pre-game for the appeal. In big trials like this, appeals are inevitable (unless the process is exhausting enough to make a settlement more appealing), so this move suggests Apple's lawyers are now finishing off with enough material to make the appeal trial that much more interesting.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (5, Interesting)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about 2 years ago | (#41016499)

Reminds me of Judge Jackson in United_States vs. Microsoft. He got so pissed at Microsoft's behavior in court that he said some rather unfriendly things about the company in interviews (see http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/42071 [wired.com] ).

Which was probably not so smart and might have contributed to his verdict (breaking up Microsoft) being overturned on appeal.
I always wondered why he did not keep his mouth shut and sanction Microsoft's legal team instead. They did some things that might have counted as perjury, such as presenting a faked video as evidence.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (4, Interesting)

zzyzyx (1382375) | about 2 years ago | (#41016663)

Considering she already handled around 20 cases involving Apple, she's not a very fast learner ...

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#41015923)

Yes, Judges become judges so they judge the exciting world of Patent Ownership rights.

She is probably just pissed at the entire case, and trying to do her best to keep fair headed.

Apple is strong on these patents because of apples previous history. They made the Apple Macintosh, they didn't file all their patents, and got eaten alive by their competitors.

Samsung is trying to keep their products innovative and new. And a lot of apples patents are not really as impressive as Apple says.

To be a Judge where you are probably more interested in making sure every one get fair justice. These cases seem like petty bickering over nothing. However there are laws on the books and need to be followed.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016343)

I fear to ask this one: What patents could Apple /rightly/ claim for the Mac that they didn't? They got the ideas from a deal with Xerox, and elsewhere. If you're setting those aside, then I'm all ears for what they should have patented but didn't.

(No, really. Not sarcasm. I'm curious to know. Help me out.)

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41016355)

laws that the patent trolls bought and paid for

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#41016403)

She keeps sending the two parties away with instruction to try to figure something out, away from courtroom antics. They keep coming back like angry children, ready to fight it out. I'm not surprised that she's fed up with it all.

Personally, I'm hoping that Apple gets a nasty slap in the face.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016645)

She keeps sending the two parties away with instruction to try to figure something out, away from courtroom antics.

I understand that the overcongested court system wants routine cases to be settled out of court, but settlements set no precedent.
A lot of people really want the law to say, definitively, one way or the other, whether or not one company can force another company to pay for the privilege of making a device with rounded corners.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41016713)

I wonder if it's possible to sanction ALL the lawyers.... Maybe that would set a precedent that if lawyers are abusing their privilege, they get sanctioned. This might clean up courtoom antics and make going to court much less painful, if the actual lawyers have to be continually responsible for their behaviour.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016653)

Apple is strong on these patents because of apples previous history. They made the Apple Macintosh, they didn't file all their patents, and got eaten alive by their competitors.

Care to explain what on earth would be worthy of a patent in the Macintosh? And I mean of course a patent for an industrial invention, not a design patent. You heard about Xerox PARC, didn't you?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41015933)

Maybe she IS biased towards Apple - and a crackhead, herself!

"You must be smoking crack! (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)"

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (3, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | about 2 years ago | (#41015979)

She certainly does seem unhinged. I can't imagine that this won't end up being some sort of mistrial and tried again.

Her behavior through this whole trial has disgusted me. This stuff is really damn important. Why are the companies being so limited in the amount of time they can have witnesses on the stand? In such a case with such a long history and of such importance, shouldn't the jury be allowed to hear all evidence that is relevant that the two sides want to produce? I mean, I can understand not want to drag it out over six months, and if the lawyers started putting completely irrelevant witnesses on the stand just to try to filibuster the trial, I can understand her wanting to crack down on them. But this is ridiculous.

At this point, if I were a lawyer for either side, it would be awful hard to care which way this trial goes because it just seems obvious to me that whatever the jury decides is going to be pretty unimportant once this trial is overturned and the next one begins.

It really is starting to strongly sound to me like Judge Koh is more concerned with her own ego and power trip than in being an impartial judge conducting a fair trial.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016095)

corporate sycophants are sure good at whining.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016167)

This stuff is really damn important

Hardly. Even ignoring all the stuff going on in criminal court (where someone's liberty, and sometimes their life, is at stake) and sticking to civil court, the serious cases still concern loss of life and limb, or at least of livelihoods and life savings. This crap about big companies hurling insults back and forth and playing ridiculous games with the system is only serious in so far as it's a fucking disgrace that it's allowed to tie up a system that's designed for more important things. It really doesn't matter whether 50 cents worth of your shiny new Samsung toy goes to Apple, or vice versa.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016313)

Yeah, and when either company loses it won't affect livelihoods and life savings of anyone.

I mean, they've only got CEOs and lawyers working there, right?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41016437)

That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016669)

Yeah, let's wait and see whether either Apple or Samsung is seriously affected by the outcome of this nonsense, shall we, Oh, wait a minute, I know who might be well placed to make a call on how much of it is serious and how much is crack smoking - the judge.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016615)

Successful troll with sarcastic post is successfull

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016693)

To top it off, this all came about because of the cosmetic look of these devices.

This whole court case is happening because Samsung ignored Google when they were warned about the similarity if their device. This really should have just gone to Judge Judy.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (4, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | about 2 years ago | (#41016711)

It really doesn't matter whether 50 cents worth of your shiny new Samsung toy goes to Apple, or vice versa.

I think you underestimate the seriousness of this issue to these companies. This isn't about tiny license fees. Apple is ultimately aiming for a complete sales ban on most (all?) Samsung smartphones (and then HTC). A few years ago Apple fans were proudly shouting that the iPhone had 70%+ of the smartphone market, and was growing by 200% to 300% every year. They don't talk about market share these days - now they brag about profitability - and the reason is that the iPhone market share is falling, and is down to 32%. The Samsung Galaxy phones are widely popular - UK sales data show the S2 and S3 outselling the iPhone every month except April 2012 - and if you check the "Android fragmentation" graph [businessinsider.com] you will see that Galaxy devices (GT-x) alone comprise a huge proportion of the Android market.

Apple executives are terrified that what happened with the desktop market - Apple initially gaining huge market share, and then falling to below 5% - will be repeated in the phone and tablet markets. And in a completely free market, that is what would probably happen, since competitors will produce lower price products with similar capabilities and over time erode market share of the dominant manufacturer. Thus the obvious answer is to try and avoid the dangers of the free market by asking the government to stop your competitors from being so competitive.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016215)

Why are the companies being so limited in the amount of time they can have witnesses on the stand?

Two points.

One: this is a jury trial. As such, there are twelve jurors, private citizens like yourself, who have their lives on hold (without pay!) listening to two corporate behemoths whine at each other. Dragging this out for an unreasonable amount of time will create real problems for real people.

Two: Judge Koh has more than just this case on her docket, and it isn't fair to everyone else in her district that Apple v. Samsung take up an unreasonable amount of time and prevent other cases to come to trial.

If you can't present your case with 25 hours of face time before the jury, well, you can go fuck off. The lawyers in this case don't get hired by trillion-dollar multinationals by being tame, they're going to bend any rule they can get away with. The judge needs to present a strong barrier to that.

(Oh, and bonus point: All three parties know that this is going to go to appeal anyway, unless a settlement is reached or something.)

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016221)

Or maybe she feels that this case is without merit and some outside force played a part in even letting it get this far.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016027)

Insulting someone is a good way to hide collusion with them.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016161)

From what I have read, she seemed to be bias in favour of Apple, but she changed her tone to save face when the media called her out on it. I personally don't think this is an appropriate attitude for a judge in a courtroom, and don't believe she is the right person to handle this case. This whole thing has turned into a media circus.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016335)

This whole thing turned into a media circus because it involve Apple, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with he fact that this judge is a women you sexist asshole.

Please ignore... (1, Offtopic)

infodragon (38608) | about 2 years ago | (#41015829)

Posting to remove ability to mod story I submitted.

Re:Please ignore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016077)

Explain.

Sorry ... can't do it. (Was:Please ignore...) (2, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 years ago | (#41016145)

You don't mod stories, you mod posts. There is no reason to believe you are any more or less likely to be biased than anyone else, so there is no reason to prohibit modding posts, even when they are related to the story you submitted. Also, you could have simply not modded. You aren't forced to mod. You did know that, right?

Re:Sorry ... can't do it. (Was:Please ignore...) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016253)

> You don't mod stories, you mod posts.

Right. So when someone says "mod story", it's a pretty good bet that they used it as short hand for "mod posts in the story".

> There is no reason to believe you are any more or less likely to be biased than anyone else, so there is no reason to prohibit modding posts, even when they are related to the story you submitted.

What he said was nothing about prohibiting modding. In fact if modding your own story was prohibited then he obviously would not have had to post anything.

> Also, you could have simply not modded. You aren't forced to mod. You did know that, right?

Pretty obviously he wanted to make that explicit and public. What's wrong with that?

You must be fun at parties.

Re:Please ignore... (-1, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41016293)

>>>Posting to remove ability to mod story I submitted.

Bullshit. If you don't want to mod your own story, just don't mod it. It's that simple dummy.

As for apple "smoking crak" I'm not sure why this is news. Apple's bigest fans are non-computer artistic types, and all artists experiment with mind-enhancing drugs for an extra boost of creativity.

Re:Please ignore... (3, Informative)

infodragon (38608) | about 2 years ago | (#41016801)

LMAO. I checked /. before I left for work and didn't want to be tempted. I feel it was a mater of personal integrity not to mod posts in a story I submitted. I knew I would be tempted so I posted just before I hit the highway. It's better to remove temptation before you act and personally I try to conduct myself in manners of personal integrity no matter how big or small. Funny thing is I work in the financial industry and many of my peers would see this shameful, apparently so do many on /.

ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41015857)

if i have ten hrs to do something and you know it, your saying im smoking drugs or medicating for getting irritated?

seriously the judge is just making sure apple knows to put the best evidence forth in the time everyone agreed on.

The testimony of GoatButtFart (-1, Offtopic)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 years ago | (#41015865)

Gentlemen and Lady:

I greet you in the name of goatbuttfart!

Once upon a time, there was a woman named Iñira who lived near Cxapultepec. She had three daughters who were all super duper astronaut scientist geniuses who became the first president of Mexico.

Then there was a goat that chewed off the rope tying it to the barn door, the old goat got outand blew out such a monumental fart that people all around thought the ancient volcano was erupting and it was the end of the world. Luckily it wasn'tbut damn did it stink for a while!

Well goodbye everyone, have a great weekend, etc. APPLE!

court strategy for jury (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#41015871)

This is infront of a jury.
"We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony"
"They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"

It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method.
And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.

Re:court strategy for jury (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#41016005)

I'd say it's part of due diligence to rather provide too many witnesses than too few. Besides, if I was involved in a case with a judge making such an utterly unprofessional comment, I'd sure as hell challenge him for prejudice.

Re:court strategy for jury (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41016079)

Objection! Your honor, we at Apple strongly prefer insufflation of powder cocaine to smoking crack!

Re:court strategy for jury (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#41016157)

Nice work. I see the outlines of the motion right there :D

Re:court strategy for jury (5, Informative)

ukemike (956477) | about 2 years ago | (#41016363)

This is infront of a jury. "We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony" "They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"

It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method. And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.

Clueless alert! The sort of evidence wrangling going on here will never been seen by the jury. All this stuff takes place before the jury is seated or while the jury is in the jury room. When the jury is in the courtroom the only things that are ever discussed are testimony and evidence that has been officially admitted. Seriously this is foundational to the way our justice system works. If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.

Meanwhile, in Texas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41015895)

...another patent case is brewing [macnews.com] .

The Reality Distortion Field (3, Informative)

matty619 (630957) | about 2 years ago | (#41015897)

Apparently died with Steve.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field (2, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | about 2 years ago | (#41015937)

You're probably right, or so I hope. Apple was smoking crack to file this case at all. "Rectangular design with rounded corners" indeed.

Lack of judicial temperament (0)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#41016001)

One thing is very clear from what we know of this case: Judge Lucy Koh lacks appropriate judicial temperament. A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this. Furthermore, she seems to be jumping on any possible pretext to exclude as much evidence as possible from both sides. This is unusual, especially in a civil case. Frankly, I think she just doesn't want to hear the case at all, and wishes the parties would come to a settlement. In other words, she'd rather not do her job. Maybe we should grant that wish, and impeach her for violating the Article III requirement of "good behavior".

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41016103)

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

When both sides deserve it, a fair judge should hassle and berate both sides. Justice isn't well served by tolerating games.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 2 years ago | (#41016311)

Well, perhaps she should treat them like children.

When my kids are a pain, annoying, or just outright bad - I don't berate or hassle them, I *punish* them. She should do the same.

Put counsel in the corner (one minute for every year of their age.)

That might work :).

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016775)

Put counsel in the corner (one minute for every year of their age.)

That would punish Apple and Samsung but it would encourage the lawyers to do more of the same. Those minutes are being paid for.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | about 2 years ago | (#41016339)

The judge should keep his head and language cool, so neither of the parties can argue that they were unjustly treated and ask for a mistrial. It is like you bark back at a rude customer, it makes difficult to prove that you were right.

If the judge finds one or both sides deserve it, then he can present charges of "contempt of the court" or whatever fits. The judge is not at the court to get personal satisfaction, but to do his work.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016503)

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

When both sides deserve it, a fair judge should hassle and berate both sides. Justice isn't well served by tolerating games.

It's not her fault she'd rather kick the lawyers on both sides in the nuts. Repeatedly and hard. Some of us might even help.

After recovering from a few good hard nut-flattening kicks, they'd presumably be a little bit more inclined to avoid the court, even against their masters' shrieked instructions.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (4, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 2 years ago | (#41016137)

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

Interesting choice of words. So you'd be ok with it if it was just one sided berating? Judges have done far worse to lawyers when they start resorting to court room theatrics like Apple and Samsung. Berating both sides just shows fairness, and that both sides are being asses.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (5, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41016173)

Calling someone out on their (procedural) bullshit is part of a judge's job. It's not her fault both sides are doing it, and she'd be negligent if she didn't hassle or berate them for intentionally wasting the court's time.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016191)

One thing is very clear from what we know of this case: Judge Lucy Koh lacks appropriate judicial temperament. A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this. Furthermore, she seems to be jumping on any possible pretext to exclude as much evidence as possible from both sides. This is unusual, especially in a civil case. Frankly, I think she just doesn't want to hear the case at all, and wishes the parties would come to a settlement. In other words, she'd rather not do her job. Maybe we should grant that wish, and impeach her for violating the Article III requirement of "good behavior".

A LOT of judges have been coming out against all these patent cases. It uses up court time, and they understand it is just companies trying to get the upper hand on each other.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | about 2 years ago | (#41016295)

IMHO Compelling both parties to reach a settlement as soon as possible is probably best for everyone.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (4, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 2 years ago | (#41016697)

I disagree. Invalidating as many patents as possible is best for everyone. A settlement just means Apple can sue someone else for the same stuff.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41016427)

Make the losers pay for the winner's legal bills and a lot of the meritless crap won't even be around to clog the courts in the first place. For there would be a strong incentive not to waste the court's time on a bullshit case.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016527)

And then, when a corporation can afford millions in lawyers and an injured consumer can afford next to nothing in comparison, nobody will be willing to sue. Because, if you lose, you'll owe the company that injured you millions on top of the initial injury. And the corporation, with the huge legal team, has a better chance of winning.

That only works when both sides, at the beginning of the suit, are of equal financial standing. Which is the rare case in our legal system. It sounds great on the face of it, but it's just a straw man that isn't worth the straw it's built out of.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (5, Informative)

gpmanrpi (548447) | about 2 years ago | (#41016433)

Firstly, IAAL. Secondly, judges are people. There is no "one" appropriate judicial temperament. While, I think she has made one bad decision on exclusion of evidence during discovery, she has not acted any differently than many judges I have encountered during my practice. Some of them were good jurists, others were arbitrary and capricious. She does not seem to be arbitrary or capricious. Discovery is always a thorny process in the Federal system. There are some strict rules, and there is incentive to hide things as well. Now to the issue of the day. Let's pretend you were a judge, and you had just presided over a multi-day proceeding regarding the claims of these two litigants, only to hear that a litigant wants to call 75 witnesses, significantly more than they have called during the trial proper, in rebuttal. It is ludicrous. When one is scheduling a multi-day trial one, generally has to move significant other trials around. It delays proceedings for _Thousands_ of cases. When a party wants to call 75 witnesses, you have to estimate 1-2 hours per witness minimum. With about 6 real good hours of trial a day possible, that is 25 days of trial at the absolute minum. I think "are you smoking crack" is a proper measured response, considering that you have basically ruined your trial calendar for a year minimum to make up for that. If I were the presiding judge, I may have responded by saying, "You can put 75 on there but if even one is cumulative there will be sanctions: including attorney's fees, costs, etc. and a letter to your relevant State and Federal Bars." If I felt that the parties have been wasting the court's time, "Are you smoking crack?" would be the least of what they might hear, while I consider dismissing their claims by sua sponte summary judgment or JNOV.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#41016631)

Patent engineers and attorneys also are people. If I would make a comment regarding the judge smoking crack in an ongoing trial, I'd get my ass kicked. Hard. Not working in the US, though, so perhaps that is customary over there together with the weird legal folklore of having patent cases decided by juries.

Exactly Wrong (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41016459)

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

Good grief man, have you ever seen any real trials?

It is EXACTLY the job of a judge to ride herd over lawyers on both sides, as they will take whatever advantage they can eek out. You cannot have some mild judge that gets rode over by the alpha personality that almost every trial lawyer exhibits.

A judge must make, then strictly enforce, rules - or else the lawyers will just take over.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (1)

hey (83763) | about 2 years ago | (#41016501)

I don't know what you mean... Judge Judy does that.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016609)

Maybe she's gunning for her own show like Judge Judy.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about 2 years ago | (#41016805)

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

Really? I think a great many legal issues could be solved if judges would just look over the case, decide it doesn't have merit and tell the prosecutor to GTFO out of here before I hold you in contempt.

Just think about the lawsuits that generated things like "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly" on Superman underwear...or (due to the McDonalds lawsuit) coffee cups everywhere stating "Warning: Contents Hot"

Re:Lack of judicial temperament (2)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#41016809)

Only further supports my crazy conspiracy theory from two weeks ago [slashdot.org]

Judge is intentionally dragging this out, and ensuring both sides have plenty of ammo for appeals. My unfounded conjecture is that she's getting kickbacks from both Apple and Sony. Additionally, she could be sharing a bit of profit from the lawyers involved, who will be employed for a long time, including the many MANY appeals that are sure to stem from this case.

Best Judge ever!!! (4, Funny)

zixxt (1547061) | about 2 years ago | (#41016003)

I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.

She needs her own show on TV.

Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016053)

Apple has been caught buying their design expert witness [phonearena.com] for 75.000 USD. Though normal to cover expenses for expert witnesses, this is quite excessive. The guy even describes himself as a professional expert witness on his own website.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (2, Insightful)

dhermann (648219) | about 2 years ago | (#41016093)

Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016183)

Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?

You stopped reading after the first of the 3 sentences?

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41016399)

i agree "expenses plus extra for his time there" but 75grand the guy will say anything in apple's favor then no matter how untrue it is. Hell Samsung could argue he to jury that if they paid him that he would be in samsungs favor bashing apple so can't take anything he says at face value.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016279)

The parent acknowledged that they get paid. He brought issue with exorbitant compensation being given to expert witnesses. Finding an expert to support your claim is one thing, paying a reputable witness to agree with whatever you want is an entirely different thing.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (2)

chrb (1083577) | about 2 years ago | (#41016411)

Expert witnesses are supposed to be paid for their time - not for their testimony in itself. If the amount of money is excessive, then it suggests that what the client is really buying is the testimony itself rather than merely compensating an independent expert witness for their time. So, the question is, do you honestly think that this expert witness's time "so far" is worth $75k? How many hours work did he put in here? What is his hourly rate? He has "so far" given a testimony that (quote) "mainly verified that the Galaxy S has the same rectangular form as the iPhone along with features like black color, a display central on the front of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped speaker." Now, maybe he really did put a huge amount of time into figuring that out, or maybe his hourly rate is really high - like $5k/hour or so - but it is also possible that he is being paid to paid provide a certain viewpoint that does not actually represent independent research. (And yes, this kind of thing probably happens often in these kind of court cases, which is why it needs to be called out when it is blatant).

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016779)

Now, maybe he really did put a huge amount of time into figuring that out, or maybe his hourly rate is really high - like $5k/hour or so - but it is also possible that he is being paid to paid provide a certain viewpoint that does not actually represent independent research. (And yes, this kind of thing probably happens often in these kind of court cases, which is why it needs to be called out when it is blatant).

His hourly rate probably is high, he is an expert and he probably had to be convinced to put his retirement aside to go hang out with lawyers for *weeks* going over some of the most arcane legal texts around... If I was a retired engineer with enough money in the bank to live comfortably for the rest of my life, you would have to make the deal pretty damn sweet to get me involved.

Alternatively, if I wasn't retired - you would have to convince me to make my boss angry by delaying whatever project I'm working on.

Also, this stuff does take time. Apple testified to spending $1,800,000 on their own employee's salaries gathering some of the evidence they're using in this case... they must have had a lot of people working for a long time to hit that figure.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$ (2)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#41016715)

Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?

Maybe they're more like consultants?

To a reasonable degree, I can see paying expert witnesses. If you find a person that is a respected authority, agrees with you, is good at expressing themselves clearly and unambiguously, and is already gainfully employed, you can either (A) subpoena them, drag them away from what they're working on, and probably cost them money and piss them off a bit and end up hurting your case by their spinning their testimony against you in spite, or (B) cover their costs plus a little "for the trouble" to come out and make your testimony and give them an opportunity to be "the expert" up at the front of the room which most of them probably enjoy anyway.

Now (B) certainly is abusable. Some people will say anything for money, even under threat of perjury. But it has its reasonable place. It's up to the jury to decide the credibility of the witness. The opposing council is certainly within their right to try to undermine that credibility if they can demonstrate that they were paid lavishly to testify. That's the check-and-balance here. These guys can probably make around 75k speaking at any event, this isn't a lot different to them.

In any event, I think that most "expert witnesses" could slant their testimony at least a little bit in either direction if they wanted to, they have enough facts to be able to put at least a little spin on it either way. You have to hope that the opposing council practices spin control. Juries understand that this is a "witness for party xxx" and will give it a little larger grain of salt when they're supporting party xxx if they're doing their job.

I also think there is some question of "expert witness" and "impartial witness". Good reading: http://www.balindaandco.com/Blog/Personal-Injury-Are-expert-witnesses-impartial/ [balindaandco.com]
They propose some solutions, but the best seems to be "each side brings their own 'expert witness' to testify before the jury". If you can't guarantee impartialness, at least get both sides of the spin presented to the jury.

Not exorbitant, per hour was $550 (1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41016545)

Apple has been caught buying their design expert witness for 75.000 USD.

They guy worked for it though, 136 hours or so (if you had read the article you'd know he was being paid $550/hour).

You seem to think an expert witness is just spending a few hours on a stand. Not so, there are MANY hours spent in preparation of a trial, also helping APple produce supporting documents or determine what is infringing.

That seems like a lot of money but consider that the person has to work in a high stress environment, taking time away from other projects - and to boot is highly valuable as having actually been the one working on a lot of Apple icons. $550/hour is totally reasonable.

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550 (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41016647)

anyone else see him spending 136 hours as kinda fishy? did he really spend that much time?

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550 (2)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 2 years ago | (#41016709)

$550 an hour is totally reasonable? I'm pretty sure if you took 55 people off the streets, paid them $10/hr each, and put them to work for over 3 full work weeks you'd get a more comprehensive result than "the Galaxy S has the same rectangular form as the iPhone along with features like black color, a display central on the front of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped speaker."

I could probably get my eleven year old brother to provide a better analysis for free in a day.

...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal... (1, Funny)

Picass0 (147474) | about 2 years ago | (#41016067)

Koh may have just handed Apple what they need to prove she has a bias if they need to appeal this case later.

There appropriate ways for a Judge to express their frustrations at a plaintiff.

Re:...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal. (2)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | about 2 years ago | (#41016185)

Inappropriate != bias

Re:...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal. (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41016323)

Considering her attitude towards both sides, is it possible for both sides to request her removal?

Anyone else? (5, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | about 2 years ago | (#41016073)

Anyone else think the legal system would make more sense if they were smoking crack?

Re:Anyone else? (2)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41016227)

Since all these people running the legal system are on crack, you need to smoke the same stuff to understand their perspective.

Re:Anyone else? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016347)

Well, crack has a tendency to make the users aggressive etc... But i do suggest some LSD for the jury and other people following this case closely.....

Re:Anyone else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016473)

Anyone else think the legal system would make more sense if they were smoking crack?

Maybe, but for now we'll just have to live with the fact that they all snort cocaine instead.

Ability to tolerate use of "wearing thin" (0)

FFOMelchior (979131) | about 2 years ago | (#41016197)

Is wearing thin.

Re:Ability to tolerate use of "wearing thin" (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | about 2 years ago | (#41016369)

the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin

You're right. It is a misuse in reference to a fixed interval that is elapsing. It would be correct if she was granting additional allotments of time, but was losing the inclination to continue doing so. Her patience is wearing thin though, and I certainly don't blame her. She should squeeze both parties' balls even harder.

When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (-1)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41016225)

Regardless of which side it favors, this is very unprofessional behavior coming from a judge presiding over a very influential case that could result in millions, even billions, of dollars in damages.

I'm in full agreement that the entire legal system is in need of extensive reform, but it shouldn't come in the form of cowboy (or cowgirl) judges making off-the-cuff remarks like those we've been hearing from Judge Koh.

Judge Koh, you're making it very clear that you don't find this trial to be a good use of your time. In that case, remove yourself. You have the power - rather, the responsibility - to remove yourself from a trial if you know or feel that you cannot provide fair and equal treatment to both plaintiff and defendant. Otherwise, you have a legal duty to preside over this case in a fair and professional manner.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (5, Insightful)

Agent.Nihilist (1228864) | about 2 years ago | (#41016341)

Uh, Apple has 4 hours left to give any of their arguments. They gave her a list of 75! witness that she had to read and familiarize herself with overnight. Even apple themselves said they would only get 20 of the witnesses on the stand in 4 hours.

To recap.
4 hours
20 planned witnesses
75 objections to review.

That's straight up bullshit.
They are being unprofessional, she is simply taking them down a peg.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41016599)

Why would either side be considered unprofessional for naming more witnesses than they need? Please explain further. I'm aware that rejections happen for a multitude of reasons, so it would seem that having alternates is a must.

Though I personally fail to see why it's a big deal, and I understand that a time limit is a time limit, all she would have to say is "you need to cut this list down to only the witnesses you plan to present", not "you wouldn't submit this unless you were smoking crack".

My opinion remains that this judge is very unprofessional.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41016729)

Why would either side be considered unprofessional for naming more witnesses than they need?

Almost four times as many witnesses as they could possibly question?

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (1)

DeeEff (2370332) | about 2 years ago | (#41016763)

all she would have to say is "you need to cut this list down to only the witnesses you plan to present"

That's what the point of Apple submitting this list was all about in the first place. She had asked that the first time and they gave her a list of 20 witnesses that Apple believed they were going to bring to court.

She told them off. Unprofessional or not, she could have done much worse to Apple's lawyers for trying to waste her own as well as the courts' time. I think it's a welcome change for this case, and is probably one of the reasons Koh remained as judge for it. This needs to be a quick, no-nonsense, no-bullshit, no-courtroom-theatrics case that settles things once and for all. The amount of patent cases in a day alone waste enough of the courts' time, and I doubt that anyone wants it to be wasted anymore, because Apple thinks their going to get away with 20 witnesses in an impossibly short amount of time.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016789)

Your opinion is shit. All you have to base it on is second or third hand comments from media or corporate lawyers.

Also, anyone familiar with the legal system would realize that the lawyers on both sides are play acting through this entire trial because they *know* it is just a step on the way to an appeal.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016799)

Uh, Apple has 4 hours left to give any of their arguments. They gave her a list of 75! witness that she had to read and familiarize herself with overnight. Even apple themselves said they would only get 20 of the witnesses on the stand in 4 hours.

To recap.
4 hours
20 planned witnesses
75 objections to review.

That's straight up bullshit.
They are being unprofessional, she is simply taking them down a peg.

From TFSummary:
75 is the number of pages in the document and 22 the number of witnesses in that document.

Whilst it would be easy to rip your post to shreds, it's by no means the most worthy of disdain in the blindly pro-Android bollocks that we currently have to put up with on Slashdot.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016509)

Regardless of which side it favors, this is very unprofessional behavior coming from a judge presiding over a very influential case that could result in millions, even billions, of dollars in damages.

Firstly, the suggestion that you should get a better class of justice if you have billions of dollars to argue over is truly vile and despicable. Either these sort of comments are acceptable by a judge or they are not. The wealth and claims of the parties is irrelevant to that.

Secondly, to answer your question, Lucy Koh worked at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a Palo Alto, California law firm as a litigation partner representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters from 2002 to 2008. So I imagine she 'became a patent lawyer' around then or a bit before.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016745)

I think you need to read the GP's Subject line again.

Judy != Koh

I believe the GP subject is intended as a joke referring to the sensationalist comments and behavior going on in this trial being akin to those found on small claims court TV shows.

Although I think by "Lawyer" he may have meant "Judge".

Changing jurisdiction (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#41016409)

DEA will continue with this proceeding from now on.

Lucy In the iSky (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#41016543)

S. Jobs was fond of LSD. It seems the culture spread in Apple.

In other news.... (3, Funny)

peoples_champion (2664783) | about 2 years ago | (#41016591)

Apple has just put a patent on the term "smoking crack", people who use the term, and/or engage in the activity could now be charge with copyright infringement. This may prove to be the most serious blow to the crack consumers, and the illegal drugs industry at large........

The only good way to handle this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41016717)

The only good way to handle this is to then charge Apple with a felony.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>