celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 18, 2013 18:04:40 GMT
On the flipside. We've had a number of lawyers and retired lawyers on Groklaw commenting. Not to mention, many of us have not had any problem commenting about our understanding of things. It might not hurt if any of us write up our analysis of any case and the rest of us pick it apart. Of course one would have to be brave enough to post something he/she knows will likely get shredded by the community. We might even learn more by doing such posts.
The downside, is, the hive brain effect. We might also wind up going down some twisted inconceivable logic with no relation to legal reality. But, hell, we can't do any worse than Florian.
I say, "Cry Havoc, and let loose the Dogs of War!"
I'll even volunteer to dissect the first Court Opinion that gets posted. I bet I can do better than Florian or the general News Media. Although, I may pull a Steve Jobs and "steal" lots of ideas from any lawyer/paralegal who reports on it, or I can get to talk to me, as well as drawing from past articles relating to similar decisions.
I don't care if others shred some post I make. I can take positive, negative, constructive, and non-constructive criticism. It's only words.
|
|
|
Authored by opensourceftw on Sept 19, 2013 5:15:40 GMT
Well, in that case, let's just read what Flo writes and publish the exact opposite. Should be rather accurate
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 19, 2013 19:22:54 GMT
I'm sorry, my stomach isn't that strong. It would be great to have some experts explain it all for us. We might even be able to get some lawyers to answer some questions for us. There are a number of lawyers out there blogging. However, if we don't have any, we don't, and I don't think we should stop discussing these cases, or going and taking notes and getting the legal docs just because we don't have a PJ type analyst anymore. Yes, she leaves a humongous hole to fill, but this is still an important task. We can't let the likes of Florian be the only voice feeding the reporters. We have plenty of people as expert in reading these as him, and some much better. And while PJ has lots of experience advanced Law students also have plenty to offer as well. At least if they are getting passing grades. Still there's a lot we could do on our own, after all we've been following these cases for years and have intimate knowledge of the players. We'd likely have much better insight than news reporters who only follow a case for a day and then move on to something else, and maybe cycle back to the case another day. But they are most likely not deep-diving into the players in the case, as we have.
|
|
|
Authored by ukjayb on Sept 20, 2013 12:02:32 GMT
We have plenty of people as expert in reading these as [Florian], and some much better. A monkey could do his job better than him. At least a monkey wouldn't completely lie through his teeth at every turn then vehemently attack anybody that disagrees with him in a talkback forum.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 20, 2013 18:13:43 GMT
I say, "Cry Havoc, and let loose the Dogs of War!" I'll even volunteer to dissect the first Court Opinion that gets posted. I bet I can do better than Florian or the general News Media. Although, I may pull a Steve Jobs and "steal" lots of ideas from any lawyer/paralegal who reports on it, or I can get to talk to me, as well as drawing from past articles relating to similar decisions. I don't care if others shred some post I make. I can take positive, negative, constructive, and non-constructive criticism. It's only words. OK. Why don't we do that? Someone posts the first evaluation, and then the rest of us post corrections/suggestions. In the meantime, we start looking for some legal assisstance. I have a couple of ideas there. Let me chance down some people who have done pro-bono work in the past, and see if they can neither help, or suggest people who might be willing to help. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
Authored by Anonymous on Sept 25, 2013 3:10:57 GMT
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 25, 2013 16:05:57 GMT
Well, since I can't create a thread here, and not sure where to drop this. Here it goes. We need a place to drop the case files. This is a little old, but I'm going to try to cover stuff from where we were when PJ stopped. I'm not seeing this item in her list, although technically it happened before she shut down. Docket #737 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO ENFORCE by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 669 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2013) docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2012cv00630/251113/737/Here's my summary and analysis. Samsung needed to have Apple financials in order to do a proper defense and calculation of the claimed infringement dollar figure. The court back in April of 2013 ordered Apple to comply and produce relevant documents. Apple refused. Apple objected. Apple waffled and whined and complained. Meanwhile the case rolled on, deadlines approached and the judge Lucy Koh has a history of denying late homework, err... filings. Ergo, Samsung had to rely on other means to do the calculations that were due. Now comes Samsung continuing to ask for these documents and the enforcement of the court order which Apple has so contemptuously failed to comply with (shades and memories of SCO antics). Some would say this is just good lawyering business. The judge, and both parties all agree that Apple should have produced these. That the law is clear on this, and that the court should order this to happen. But once again Judge Koh sides with Apple and denies the motion and to order enforcement of her own order. The reasoning is since Samsung was able to compose an estimate, based on some magic which isn't revealed, they don't need it. So Samsung can't argue the specifics which those documents would have produced. Additionally, in a sort of win for Samsung and a possible attempt to at least appear impartial and fair, Apple can't come back and say that Samsung has excluded too much damages, because Apple has incredulously said it can't produce the specifics. She all but call Apple a bunch of liars here. Or perhaps it was judge speak for "liar liar pants on fire" to Apple. I'm not saying she wasn't fair. But, she didn't even sanction Apple for failing to comply, and I'm sure she's really tired of this case and is doing the best she can to send it off into the NeverNeverland of Appeals. But again, maybe that's just good lawyering. Take all you can give nothing back. Or as Wendy says in Hook to Robin Williams (aka Peter Pan), "You've become a pirate!". Perhaps there is not much difference in the techniques of Pirates and Lawyers. I know plenty of Lawyers and Judges. All good men and women, but I wouldn't want to be their adversary, anymore than I would want to have to face a pirate. Lawyers after all are paid to win, and can often get away with things in court that the rest of us mere mortals can't. Feel free to correct any misunderstandings I've made. I'm attaching the PDF (available at the link above). I'll also look into seeing what I can do to start collecting the legal filings. But I'm a busy man, and so far don't see any place to post docs here (except as attachments). Also, if I'm going to start collecting legal docs from Lexis (who just had their can handed to them by crackers - oh joy) we'll need a way to raise some greenbacks to defray my expenses. ApplevSamsung_737.pdf (109.06 KB)
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
Authored by Anonymous on Nov 8, 2013 17:21:35 GMT
There are new docket entries!
November 5, 2013 Set Hearing as to 877 -3, 878 -3, 880 -4 and 882 -4: Motions to Strike set for 12/10/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2013)
October 25, 2013 848 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 834 Stipulation (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2013)
October 25, 2013 847 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 846 Stipulation (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2013)
October 24, 2013 846 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Requests for Admission Concerning Authenticity of Documents filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 10/24/2013)
October 18, 2013 Set/Reset Hearing re 836 Order on Stipulation Further Case Management Conference set for 12/12/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2013)
October 18, 2013 837 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 832 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2013)
October 18, 2013 836 Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 835 Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2013)
October 18, 2013 835 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Case Management Conference Date filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 10/18/2013)
October 18, 2013 834 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME TO CONDUCT DEPOSITION OF SYLVIA HALL-ELLIS filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/18/2013)
October 15, 2013 820 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 789 Motion to Stay; denying 790 Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge Grewal's Nondispositive Pretrial Order; finding as moot 800 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 801 Corrected Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)
October 9, 2013 795 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 794 Stipulation (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013)
October 8, 2013 794 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Third Party Declarations filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/8/2013)
October 7, 2013 793 Samsung's Further Reduction of Invalidity References by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Kang, Robert) (Filed on 10/7/2013) Modified text on 10/8/2013 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
October 7, 2013 792 Apple Inc.'s Case Narrowing Identification of Invalidity References/Systems/Combinations by Apple Inc.(a California corporation) (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 10/7/2013) Modified text on 10/8/2013 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
October 7, 2013 791 ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh re 788 Motion to Shorten Time (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2013)
October 7, 2013 790 MOTION Relief from Non-dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate re 785 Order, Samsung's Motion for Relief from Non-dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). Responses due by 10/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Becher, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Relief)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/7/2013)
October 7, 2013 789 MOTION to Stay re 785 Order, Samsung's Emergency Admin. Motion to Stay filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). Responses due by 10/7/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Becher, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Stay)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/7/2013)
October 7, 2013 788 MOTION to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing re 1. Samsung's Emergency Motion to Stay and 2. Samsung's Motion for Relief from Non-dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Becher, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Shorten Time)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/7/2013)
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Feb 22, 2014 21:16:15 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 9, 2014 4:04:12 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Apr 24, 2014 13:35:56 GMT
Good question...
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 26, 2014 1:46:04 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 29, 2014 20:58:26 GMT
|
|
Kallethen
Guest
|
Authored by Kallethen on Apr 30, 2014 0:21:07 GMT
This is perhaps the biggest reason why I lament the loss of Groklaw. (Not that I begrudge or hold anything against PJ. I begrudge the situation that led us to this point.)
|
|