3 ms·

That has to be quite the moment, when you realize that the more than half billion you were about to see a piece of evaporates.

jessaustin 10y ago
...that moment when you realize you should have accepted the negotiated settlement. Incidentally, this seems so... capricious. The judge presided over a trial during which a previous trial (that was OK to mention) was mentioned too many times? Maybe he should have just stopped that while he was presiding, rather than waiting until later? It almost looks like he was surprised by the giant size of the verdict, and worried it might focus too much attention on the travesty that is East Texas, so he's looking to get out on a technicality?
- Steko 10y ago
  > capricious... I don't see any justification for this. > The judge presided over a trial during which a previous trial (that was OK to mention) was mentioned too many times? Maybe he should have just stopped that while he was presiding, rather than waiting until later? 'Maybe judges should never make mistakes' sounds like a great plan but you might want a backup plan and one better than accusing them of capriciousness when they do make mistakes. > It almost looks like he was surprised by the giant size of the verdict, and worried it might focus too much attention on the travesty that is East Texas, so he's looking to get out on a technicality? It almost looks like he fucked up and Apple's highly paid legal team had him dead to rights and rather than be reversed by a higher court he took the medicine himself.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Read the order: the whole motion is based on the mentions being fine for one suit and prejudicial for the other, and Apple consented to the consolidation. If one accepts the ridiculous record of patent jurisprudence in East Texas, there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial. If, like me, one doesn't accept that, it's obvious that the judge is just trying to keep the whole disgusting façade from collapsing.
    - Steko 10y ago
      I read the order before I made my comment, thanks. The order makes clear note of why these mentions were prejudicial in this case. > Apple consented to the consolidation IANAL but seems like you don't understand the difference between consent and objecting to but preferring consolidation to trying the cases out of order. > there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial The judge goes into detail on how mentions of the earlier trial were used in the consolidated one to "gratuitous" prejudicial impact, including the repeated mentions to infringement by FaceTime 1.0 when that finding had been reversed. He quotes several of these at length, goes on to cites multiple precedents, then goes into detail why VirnetX's cited precedent doesn't apply to this case.
callalex 10y ago
I have little sympathy for someone who makes their money by leeching off of others instead of providing real value to society.
- boznz 10y ago
  We talking about Apple now or the Patent Troll ;-)
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Why do you think that I was expressing sympathy?

jessaustin 10y ago

...that moment when you realize you should have accepted the negotiated settlement. Incidentally, this seems so... capricious. The judge presided over a trial during which a previous trial (that was OK to mention) was mentioned too many times? Maybe he should have just stopped that while he was presiding, rather than waiting until later? It almost looks like he was surprised by the giant size of the verdict, and worried it might focus too much attention on the travesty that is East Texas, so he's looking to get out on a technicality?

Steko 10y ago
> capricious... I don't see any justification for this. > The judge presided over a trial during which a previous trial (that was OK to mention) was mentioned too many times? Maybe he should have just stopped that while he was presiding, rather than waiting until later? 'Maybe judges should never make mistakes' sounds like a great plan but you might want a backup plan and one better than accusing them of capriciousness when they do make mistakes. > It almost looks like he was surprised by the giant size of the verdict, and worried it might focus too much attention on the travesty that is East Texas, so he's looking to get out on a technicality? It almost looks like he fucked up and Apple's highly paid legal team had him dead to rights and rather than be reversed by a higher court he took the medicine himself.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Read the order: the whole motion is based on the mentions being fine for one suit and prejudicial for the other, and Apple consented to the consolidation. If one accepts the ridiculous record of patent jurisprudence in East Texas, there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial. If, like me, one doesn't accept that, it's obvious that the judge is just trying to keep the whole disgusting façade from collapsing.
  - Steko 10y ago
    I read the order before I made my comment, thanks. The order makes clear note of why these mentions were prejudicial in this case. > Apple consented to the consolidation IANAL but seems like you don't understand the difference between consent and objecting to but preferring consolidation to trying the cases out of order. > there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial The judge goes into detail on how mentions of the earlier trial were used in the consolidated one to "gratuitous" prejudicial impact, including the repeated mentions to infringement by FaceTime 1.0 when that finding had been reversed. He quotes several of these at length, goes on to cites multiple precedents, then goes into detail why VirnetX's cited precedent doesn't apply to this case.

callalex 10y ago

I have little sympathy for someone who makes their money by leeching off of others instead of providing real value to society.

boznz 10y ago
We talking about Apple now or the Patent Troll ;-)
Aelinsaar 10y ago
Why do you think that I was expressing sympathy?