It's Samsung's fault that it doesn't have enough time, says Judge Koh
With that in mind, though, Samsung's attorneys seem to be a bit nervous these days, as it turns out they didn't have enough time to present their own case. Judge Lucy Koh, though, who has been very strict throughout the course of the whole trial, has stated that Samsung has simply decided to waste more time to cross-examine Apple's witnesses, rather than to argue its case.
"Samsung made a strategic decision to spend more time to [cross-examine] than Apple used to present its affirmative case,” said the judge.
And it looks like she won't tolerate any possible motions by Samsung complaining of a lack of time, as she even entered that statement into the record.
The final testimonies are expected to happen today, while the closing arguments for the parties are currently slated for Tuesday. Expect to be flooded with news from the court next week, when this epic legal clash will, after all, come to an end.
1. bobfreking55 (Posts: 866; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
the best ending to this would be:
"okay Samsung and Apple, thanks for letting all your hate come out. you may now resume your daily operations."
then all of the sudden the Bohemian Rhapsody plays and all the lawyer would be jumping like "GALILEO GALILEO"
23. dmckay12 (Posts: 243; Member since: 25 Feb 2012)
What about a dance off between Judge Koh and the lawyers.
2. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2384; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
They had to defend themselves on the allegations of what apple was saying first! Of course they couldnt just go ahead an say what they wanted to say.....Come on judge! Plus you not allowing them to present certain things in the court SURELY didnt help as well.........She starting up again..... :(
8. Hunt3rj2 (Posts: 396; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)
Oh come on, the judge is being reasonable here. Both Apple and Samsung are basically doing the tried and true "throw enough paperwork down their throats to destroy everyone else" approach.
Samsung is one of the biggest conglomerates in the world, they have plenty of money to do everything they need.
9. -box- (Posts: 3735; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
They were both allotted the same amount of time. If Samsung were granted more, then apple would have to be as well, which could result in even more time of Samsung's being wasted on cross-examination and rebuttal. The time limit was a good idea, but I think it's execution should have been such that which ever party's witness it was it was their time being used, forcing the lawyers of said party to get to the point and be concise, rather than filibustering and throwing credentials and paperwork around to metaphorically fog the court.
4. Birds (Posts: 971; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
Now how are you gonna be pissy bitching at Samsung when you had an Apple bias to begun with? The only thing Samsung was doing was seeing if Apple was legit or not because this is more serious that a lot of people could fathom. She tried to get fare towards the end but I knew it was too good to be true....I'm just gonna say this. if I can't get a Samsung Galaxy S III on the start of September, I'm going to Marietta and burning down that apple store. To me seven iPhones combined aren't even as valuable as one Galaxy S III... And If I can't get freedom of selection from y second favorite cellphone brand (Samsung) I'm going to make everyone I possibly can just simply suffer....
10. -box- (Posts: 3735; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
I don't believe the S3 is affected, and if it were, software updates would resolve any complaints if the verdict went against Samsung.
Also, threatening arson or other such criminalistic activity (which borderlines on terrorism) is really not a good idea, especially in a public forum. If you must make a public statement, do so with peaceful protests, not violence and destruction
17. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the long list of "infringing" devices was wittled down to just the SGS1european version and a few others. I believe all the american SGS1's were thrown out. The SGS3 isnt anywhere near threatened. If someone can argue successfully that the SGS3 looks anything like an iphone, they need to be a billionaire lawyer.
Anyhow, there is a chart around here somewhere that shows "each phone". Most of which are no longer sold.. or are at least major components of samsung's sales.
5. FrostyDanny (Posts: 90; Member since: 15 Jul 2012)
f**k you apple destroying innovation and the competition through unetical tactics. There is nothing to copy off the iphone when it has been the same the past 3 years. Im not biased this is just bulls**t and makes me mad.
7. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
there is nothing saying patents and the court system are unethical… in fact the judicial system is arguably the most ethical institution of all time!!
I suppose you find no visual difference between the iphone 3gs and the the iphone 4? might as well add the iphone 3g in there as well…
anyways, was it not but a few articles ago where koh was being praised for admonishing apple…
11. -box- (Posts: 3735; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
I would say that justice and ethics aren't equivalent, and neither is morality. Laws are written by those with the money and or influence to get them on the books, and less so what the general majority of the populace want. Granted there are semi-universal laws, but when there are laws to regulate what should be common sense, and laws to give certain individuals special benefits others don't qualify for (elitists and the rich, not the poor and impoverished) there's an issue with the judicial system
25. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
oh come on please dont endorse the class warfare that our politicians (well just obama) are endorsing…
there will always be a certain amount of corruption, but nobody in the world has a better justice system than the US, and, although reformed throughout the years to change with social values, it has not drastically changed for hundreds of years
anyways if the laws only benefited the rich like you say, people would vote into power who they think would change that and it would balance out
28. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
without class warfare and divisive rhetoric, what would the democrats have to talk about?? The issues? lol. They are all about race tension and emotion.. "greedy" "evil" "throw grandma off a cliff" "end X as we know it"... all emotional ploys with no actual substance. And obviously it works well on those that actually dont know crap about whats going on.
29. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
oh dont forget Romney is a murderer and wants dirty air and water… talk about the dirtiest campaign of all time-- even hilary clinton agrees!
30. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
not only is he a murderer, but he also ate the family dog! And of course since he's already an evil murdering dog eater, he also hasnt paid taxes in 10 years!!
Not only does Ryan want to "end medicare as we know it", he wants to make your grandparents homeless, then push them off a cliff! And dont forget, they both want to put minorities "back in chains".
And the actual "political season" hasnt even started yet. lol.
Did you see the news today? His old Advisor Rahm Emanuel got Chicago sued by its police officers for racist firings and illegal political back scratching for other officers.
The hits just keep coming.
32. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
haha nah i normally watch hannity at night for my political news of the day
its like Obama and the entourage of dems forget Medicare will be bankrupt in 11 years… and Ryan gets criticized for not going deficit neutral for 34 years, but when we are borrowing upwards of a trillion each year, the change wont happen overnight… anyways mortgages normally take anywhere from 15-30 years so it is not an unreasonable number
and while we are on this, may I just point out how big of an idiot Biden is… California really needs to get some better representation than Biden and Pelosi
also even if we taxed the rich 100% (another dem talking point), the 80 billion the government would get would not even be close to 1% of our debt… not to mention said rich wouldnt work at all-- in fact there is not correlation between raising taxes on anybody and a healthier state-- quite the opposite
I am not in the 1%, but I feel intelligent enough to realize that raising taxes on anybody (especially the top 5% who pay 60% of total income taxes already) does not help the economy
34. dmckay12 (Posts: 243; Member since: 25 Feb 2012)
By the time people my age are in charge, everyone will be paying at least 60% income tax and the entire social security system will have collapsed. I am headed into a world of suck.
35. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
well thats why you vote republican! nobody else has anything close to a balanced budget
36. dmckay12 (Posts: 243; Member since: 25 Feb 2012)
They (the bureaucrats) not only need to balance the budget, but raise taxes as well. The corporate tax needs to be lowered it is so high that companies work around it by having their HQs in tax havens. Change the way our economics work (note gold standard is impossible (not enough gold)). I think that all people between 18 and 30 should be in the reserves and be required to own a weapon (that is theirs after discharge). Buy more carriers, subs, and planes (China is building them and they might want to collect their money). All laws limiting the purchase , carry, and ownership of knives should be repealed (switchblade laws are stupid) (Still not in elementary-middle schools though). The Hughes amendment should be repealed (Machine gun ban).The patent office needs to be overhauled. The government should keep out of my business.
38. nastynaps (Posts: 93; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
Wow I wish I saw all these ramblings earlier. You guys are so entrenched in your political sports teams you have no idea of the real problems this country faces. Sean Hannity and news don't belong together, tune into C-Span and NPR if you want to hear ALL the information rather than half-truths and regurgitated talking points. I mean for christ's sake you think Joe Biden represents California!
1) Have you even looked at the budget Obama presented to Congress?
2) Do you understand how a progressive tax system works?
3) Paul Ryan's budget does nothing to alleviate the issues we're facing now nor does it have any flexibility to mitigate unforeseen issues in the future.
4) It seems your politics are really skewed by the media outlets and you're exactly who they want voting.
39. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Hannity isnt news, its opinion, that I agree with. Same as others like Orielly and Jon Stewart, or 80% of everything else on all news channels. However, fox NEWS is a great source of info and is generally unbiased. People confuse opinion pieces with news.. they are not the same.
NPR has been proven left and right to be run by people with a democrat agenda and it has a democrat spin on most shows. It should not be publicly funded liberal propaganda and needs to be privatized.
c-span is just frikkin boring. lol
Joe Biden isnt from California, he's from Delaware. Interestingly enough, he was one of the YOUNGEST people ever elected to the Senate in his 20s. Lifetime politicians should be illegal. Term limits for all.
2) progressive taxes are punitive taxes. The more you make the higher % you give. It punishes you for success. The best tax system is one that is minimal and non punitive. My personal favorite is the Fair Tax. Nothing is simpler, more fair, or more studied as far as tax legislation goes. Good luck getting these clowns to vote for it since it strips them of all their special kick back powers (which is why the tax law is so convoluted now).
3)Paul Ryan's budget is LESS damaging than what Obama has ALREADY done. At the same moment in time that they were blasting Ryan's budget, they were removing EVEN MORE from Medicare and filtering it to Obamacare over the next decade, than Ryan's cuts for the same period. However, Ryan's cuts also come with an OPTION to allow you to privatize your SS account if your under a certain age. Ill take that option please. ALL.. 100%.. EVERY LAST ONE OF...the countries that have gone to privatized SS has senior citizens getting a much higher stipend on average. Chili's citizens averaged about 5-7% so far for their SS accounts... even with the world downturn. They also have a government garuntee of 4% in case crap goes bad. What does the current US system give you? about a 1% return. So yea, I'll take a private SS account please. There is no span in US history where you can find 40 years (about how long we "work") that the stock market has made less than 5-8%. That is WAY better than 1% that we get now. People that dont like privatized SS plans have done zero research or are too partisan and too in love with big government to see clearly.
4) I am a proud libertarian. There is actually a candidate running that I really like? Its not Obama or Romney, its Gary Johnson. Supporter of gay rights, legalizing marijuana (i dont do drugs, however the war on drugs is an idiotic waste of money), the Fair tax, a massively reduced government, ending our "world police" stance, smarter regulations, and the like.
However in light of the fact that we are seriously facing 4 more years of Obamination... if I have to, I'll happily vote Romney.
The best way to phrase it has already been phrased... by South Park.
Your choice is between a douche and a turd sandwich.
42. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
I said Biden represented california on accident is why he said that-- my bad
If you lived in California or texas, you might have a different stance on the legalization of Marijuana-- I am not against it, but I think living near the border shows the effects to the greatest extent-- there is a major issue and I am not sure flat out legalization is the best method
privatization is rarely a bad thing, and I do not think social security is an exception-- the problem is people are scared of going private, not privatization itself
the fair tax would be a radical new way of taxation that I believe would be good, but there are a few problems with it…
1) is there any basis to prove the fair tax works?
2) does it not give the rich fewer taxes as they might spend 1 million out of every three they make, while someone making 100 thousand spends 60%? (i am not at all one for class warfare rhetoric as I know giving the rich more money helps the economy and actually produces more jobs, but how would you sell this to the people who see themselves paying taxes on almost all their money while people with more are not?)
3) what if sales tanked?
the fair tax would be fantastic, but I doubt it could ever be achieved in our society
43. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
if you live in California or Texas, you will see the biggest benefit. The biggest benefit of legalizing the drug isnt getting high.. its the immediate reduction in violent crime and cartel shipments across the boarders. The only reason they do it now is because they make enough money for it to be viable after hiring all their guys, buying weapons, ect. Some stat I saw said something crazy like 60-70% of pot in the US is imported from mexican/central american cartels. That black market instantly goes away when its legal. Why would you buy it from a shady street dealer when you could grow it yourself or buy it at a pharmacy and know its going to have government safety controls on it... and it will be cheaper.
Of course that also leads to all those thousands of non violent criminals that got arrested for possession to be freed which reduces how much we need to be taxed to hold incarcerated prisoners. And since its legal, it can now be taxed which is fine by me. And it would still be cheaper that buying it off the street guy. So a reduction in violent crime, a reduction in taxes towards incarceration, a reduction in incarceration over all, and a new tax stream to help our deficit (like they wouldnt spend it all lol).
Oh yea, and officially end this multi billion dollar per year "war on drugs" that hasnt accomplished a darn thing. Making things illegal only makes crime and costs go up. It does little to curb actual use of the product. People that want it will always find a way.
1) yes, the fair tax is the most researched piece of legislation in american history. Its been proven to work every time. The only people that dont want it are politicians, because it removes all power to write personal benefits for donors AND the IRS goes bye bye... and socialists that love a big controlling state.
2) The fair tax is a sales tax only system. You dont get charged for basic things like food and cheap clothing, but you do for everything else like phones, cars, nice clothes, ect. It makes those millions of illegals that are not paying a penny in payroll tax immediately start paying in.. same with other payroll tax dodgers. The rich will still pay more than everyone else. You forget there are deductions after deductions and ways of hiding your money if your rich that the rest of us dont get. That instantly goes bye bye. Romney said he "paid at least 13% every year" on his income. Under the fair tax, its 23% sales tax on everything he buys that isnt food or walmart clothing. EVERYONE pays the same 23% tax on items. But its cheaper for most since there are zero payroll taxes, zero SS taxes, zero corporate taxes (which make items cheaper automatically and will bring in MILLIONS of jobs) and zero embedded taxes (which shave up to 20% of items).
3) in order for sales to tank everyone would have to stop spending. good luck. even with 15%+ true unemployment we still spend more than pretty much all of Europe combined.
44. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
is it alright then for people to get high all the time though? I dont think the argument could be made that it is better for older people over younger people… so it would be available for everyone? the problem is once you say stuff like that is okay, it is impossible to turn back-- yes I know the benefits of taxing and such, california could use it to fund our nice bullet train to nowhere… I am more worried about the societal impact of legalizing drugs than the benefits it would produce
and I dont believe in the war on drugs… I think spending that money on a "higher fence" would solve more problems-- and wouldnt lead to idiotic things such as fast and furious
1) I agree it is great in principle
2) why exempt cheap things like food and clothing? shudnt it be a blanket tax on all sales?
3) I understand the benefit of taxing illegals, but wudnt the fairtax encourage a large black market of untaxed items? then there would be another large bureaucracy to regulate that…
4)Romney already pays a 35% corporate tax on his money since he makes it on dividends, so that 13% crap is not valid
5) also would this not promote foreigners to come to the US, take our money through no corporate taxes, leave and spend it in other places?
6) would this not prompt the rich to buy everything expensive everywhere else and them import it? or just buy real estate-- or is that taxed?
sorry for the questions but I definitely like the idea and I have never had someone explain it well
40. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i watch cnn for all my news and then hannity to get some good laughs..
1) yes, but how can I support an man who has brought our country 5 trillion more into debt?
3)paul ryans budget certainly does.. medicare will be bankrupt in 11 years and he fixes it… changes dont happen overnight like obama thinks-- the ryan budget proposes balancing the budget over time which is the fiscally responsible thing to do
4) of course i watch republican news if i am a republican.. but i only watch hannity for the laughs-- anyways, the the entire mainstream media is democratic so i am not sure how it would influence a republican
37. nastynaps (Posts: 93; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
From my standpoint you guys seem to be rather misguided in your politics. To say that the US has the best judicial system in the world is completely asinine based on the fact that you do not know of every judicial system in the world. The courts have been used time and again throughout history to oppress and wage the very class warfare you think does not exist. Try reading up on American history if you actually need me to site examples. One of the clearest examples of inequity in our legal system is the penalty for crack vs. cocaine.
Do you really think our vote is going to change things when we live in a society packed with Americans who have to be spoonfed their choices? Our society is full of self serving, lazy, apathetic people governed by a monarchy that gives us the illusion of political choice. Are you even aware that more than 2 people are running a campaign for president? In a fair and civil society all voices should be heard for this very important office but they're muted by money. If you think Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are fundamentally different you're a f*cking idiot.
41. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
oh my god..
i see I am having to argue with an anti-american…
yes I am aware of other president nominees for one-- but why vote for someone who will make no impact? might as well pick the best of the worst…
and our courts are extremely fair… try getting a fair trial in china, russia, or even places like france
no I do not need examples-- I didnt say our court system is perfect, just that it is better than everyone else's-- yes there have been unforunate problems with it, but why dwell on the past
and that same "muted by money" is an unfortunate part of a capitalistic society… but the benefits outweigh the downfalls
6. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
(no)dear iKoh....how much money have you got from rotten Apple?
12. hawke9150 (Posts: 31; Member since: 17 Jun 2011)
This is far from over. Once the verdict is read, Samsung will appeal it and get to a judge who isn't (or at least we hope) on Apple's payroll.
15. roscuthiii (Posts: 1785; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
So that's what all her posturing was to Apple the other day. An encouragement for the next deposit to clear the banks before she had to make her ruling. Check must've cleared... ;-P
18. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
guys chill out.
Koh said in the beginning each side gets X amount of time to cross examine and present their own case, how they use it was up to them. Samsung spent a lot of time deflating Apple's claims.. and pretty darn successfully at it from what I saw. They knew they were hurting their own presentation.
However, I think they did a solid job of tearing down Apple's "experts" as well as poking large holes in Apple's patent validity. It looks like they just needed more time to show Apple was infringing on them. Either way I dont think if apple wins that they will get anything near what they were claiming.
Besides, it has to be a full jury verdict. All 9 jurors HAVE to agree or its a hung jury. There is no "majority" in this case.
Besides, no matter who wins, the other side will go for an appeal.
19. networkdood (Posts: 6260; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
why is there a time limit? I have seen cases go on for months.
20. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
she set one at the very beginning. It was in one of the 300 news blurbs about the case.
21. roscuthiii (Posts: 1785; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Arbitrary time limits are an injustice. Some things require greater explanation than others, some things may require more clarity. It should take as long as it takes. Simple as that. When the questions and testimonies become circular or provide little value, then she can step in and usher proceedings along if he wants to play Judge Judy.
27. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
it is and it isnt. Circle arguments are exactly why this case has had time limits installed. Both sides were attempting to overload the courts with bogus paperwork and drag it out as long as possible. The more one side talks, the more the jury will forget about the other side. Which is exactly why Apple just got yelled at for trying to submit 75 PAGES of witnesses for their "rebuttal". Seriously... how stupid is that?
How long does it take to say "look at this phone, dont you think it looks like ours?" and the other side to go "nu uh, btw, all of their patents suck, look at our videos to prove it". They both had like a week to present and be cross examined.
31. roscuthiii (Posts: 1785; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
I'm not disagreeing there. Legal teams are going to try every trick in the book. It's the judges job to regulate that, but a predetermined, arbitrary limitation imposed beforehand is not justice. It's a game show. How many baskets can you make before the buzzer to win this prize? May as well limit objections down to three. Stop calling them objections too, now they'll be known as life lines. May as well limit testimonials to 10 seconds. Instead of a gavel the judge can have a red light attached to a horn. Take away the black robe and give the judge a leisure suit. And run neon lights through absolutely everything.
Justice is supposed to be blind, that means she can't see the time on the wall either.
22. Android4u (Posts: 456; Member since: 16 Aug 2012)
Let's go Samsung let's go! Teach the fruit basket a lesson!
24. downphoenix (Posts: 2286; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
Oh Koh. She was on apple's side, then samsung's side, now she's just trolling them both!
26. master0fursinz (Posts: 104; Member since: 26 Apr 2010)
Ahh! See I told you the Illuminati was watching!
33. ddeath (Posts: 154; Member since: 14 Apr 2012)
And when this ends, Google will start the next war with Apple using Motorola patents. It's like telling Apple, since you arrogant so called 'developer for the world' want to start this bloody mess, the rest of the world will F with you.