2 ms·
> The judge presiding over the case disagrees. This was merely a preliminary hearing, and the judge also suggested the case should go to a jury.
by _qulr 6y ago
> The judge presiding over the case disagrees.
This was merely a preliminary hearing, and the judge also suggested the case should go to a jury.
- scarface74 6y agoThe case isn’t going to a jury. Both Apple and Epic agreed to a bench trial. https://www.macrumors.com/2020/09/29/apple-epic-games-no-jury-trial/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/09/29/apple-epic-games-no-jur...
- _qulr 6y agoInteresting, I hadn't seen that news yet. But it doesn't change the fact that the judge did suggest during the hearing that the case should go to a jury. I'm kind of puzzled why Epic doesn't want a jury.
- qtplatypus 6y agoJury trial is more expensive.
- scarface74 6y agoI’m sure either side could pull some nickels out of their seat cushions to pay more if they thought it was in their best interest.
- abduhl 6y agoBoth companies are interested in setting precedent. There are procedural advantages to bench trials. For example, bench trials require the presiding judge to stipulate findings of fact while jury trials don't. Jury trials are, therefore, much more difficult to appeal. Additionally, appellate courts are afraid to overturn jury verdicts because the standard to do so is so high. Most corporate litigators are aware that once it leaves the room with the jury one side is most likely f-u-c-k fucked on appeal.