If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   "Your honor, first of all, I'm not smoking crack," said Apple lawyer Bill Lee   (arstechnica.com) divider line 58
    More: Amusing, Apple, Samsung, smoking crack, Koh, design engineer, lawyer Bill, Apple lawyer  
•       •       •

5341 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Aug 2012 at 7:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-16 05:41:55 PM
This does not seem like appropriate judicial temperament.
 
2012-08-16 05:50:47 PM
Sure, you're not smoking crack right now
 
2012-08-16 05:59:32 PM
[unlikely.jpg]
 
2012-08-16 06:35:27 PM
If you're not smoking iCrack then you're not smoking iCrack. Crack, just isn't the same. I thought everyone knew this.

Judge doesn't probably know the difference because she's probably smoking Crack 2010 Home Premium. No word if she has the latest patch.
 
2012-08-16 06:35:31 PM

BarkingUnicorn: This does not seem like appropriate judicial temperament.


Actually she seemed quite restrained, I've seen plenty of judges go off for much less and she has every right to be angry with what Apple pulled. They should have filed those weeks ago.
 
2012-08-16 06:47:22 PM
The Apple lawyer was spotted in the cafeteria shortly before court.

dumpr.coreshock.org
 
2012-08-16 07:04:30 PM

mauricecano: BarkingUnicorn: This does not seem like appropriate judicial temperament.

Actually she seemed quite restrained, I've seen plenty of judges go off for much less and she has every right to be angry with what Apple pulled. They should have filed those weeks ago.


Someone on my Facebook homepage commented that a judge should display a better ability to express themselves.

Apparently she hasn't spent much time reading articles about amusing court transcripts. It ain't like TV in there.
 
2012-08-16 07:06:01 PM
Perhaps they should have been sending them in a timely manner on the new affordable iFax, a deal at only 2999.99
 
2012-08-16 07:07:19 PM
20+ witnesses to testify on that case? In less than a total of 6 hours? Good Luck With That. No wonder the judge is a tad bit peeved with counsel for both sides.
 
2012-08-16 07:11:57 PM

ClavellBCMI: 20+ witnesses to testify on that case? In less than a total of 6 hours? Good Luck With That. No wonder the judge is a tad bit peeved with counsel for both sides.


She is angry because she has show favortism towards apple in the case, and they pulled this out of their asses.
 
2012-08-16 07:16:53 PM

theflatline: ClavellBCMI: 20+ witnesses to testify on that case? In less than a total of 6 hours? Good Luck With That. No wonder the judge is a tad bit peeved with counsel for both sides.

She is angry because she has show favortism towards apple in the case, and they pulled this out of their asses.


Yeah. Apple wants most of those 20+ witnesses to testify in 4 hours. At the last minute. With a jury that is probably suffering from brain overload at this point.
 
2012-08-16 07:18:30 PM
I'm sure all of the people who've been posting this image:
i.imgur.com
or otherwise claiming Judge Koh is biased for Apple will be in momentarily to apologize.

fourfour.typepad.com
 
2012-08-16 07:22:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: This does not seem like appropriate judicial temperament.


Given the asinine state of our current IP laws. This judge is far more restrained that I could ever possibly be.
 
2012-08-16 07:23:38 PM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who've been posting this image:
[i.imgur.com image 320x448]
or otherwise claiming Judge Koh is biased for Apple will be in momentarily to apologize.

[fourfour.typepad.com image 250x194]


Just because she balks at lubeless anal doesn't mean she hasn't followed Apple to the motel room for $25
 
2012-08-16 07:27:56 PM
Some quick math:

Let's pretend that it's only 20 witnesses.
They have 4 hours to plow through them.

That's 5 witnesses an hour, giving each witness 12 minutes.

In that twelve minutes, they need to get called, get up to the stand, get sworn in, and get off the stand, as well as answer questions.

Let's say the not answering questions part takes 3 minutes. That's 9 minutes of questions per witness. A few of which probably will be basic identification questions that establish the witnesses' relevance. That puts us in the ballpark of one or two questions per witness, provided the questions are not basic yes/no questions. I'm not sure that would reflect well on their case. If I were on a jury, that would annoy the crap out of me.
 
2012-08-16 07:28:12 PM

Warlordtrooper: BarkingUnicorn: This does not seem like appropriate judicial temperament.

Given the asinine state of our current IP laws. This judge is far more restrained that I could ever possibly be.


Copyright and patent law in the US is *seriously* farked up, thanks to the Job Creators (TM) wanting it that way, the better to crush anyone who might conceivably compete with them.
 
2012-08-16 07:36:36 PM

ClavellBCMI: Yeah. Apple wants most of those 20+ witnesses to testify in 4 hours.


4hours * 60 mins/hr = 240 mins
240 mins / 20 witnesses = 12 mins/witness
which would including swearing in and cross examination and objections

yah
I can see why the judge might have a problem with this behavior
 
2012-08-16 07:45:21 PM
The judge showed a great deal of restraint. 20 witnesses in 4 hours?

Dr Bill Cosby said it best: "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight."
 
2012-08-16 07:45:28 PM
Of course the lawyer isn't on crack. They use regular cocaine.
 
2012-08-16 07:45:36 PM

namatad: yah
I can see why the judge might have a problem with this behavior


Why the hell does Apple (or any of the claimants, really) get to set the time allotted for testimony? Isn't that a function of the court?

/genuinely curious
 
2012-08-16 07:48:04 PM

Richard Freckle: Perhaps they should have been sending them in a timely manner on the new affordable iFax, a deal at only 2999.99


What is this, 1997?
 
2012-08-16 07:49:55 PM
In defense of both all of the attorneys and the judge, however, I will say that their thought processes, emotions, and logic are not going to be working at 100% at this point.

Trials (in real life, not TV) are boring as hell when you are not the one talking, but they are horribly exhausting and stressful.
 
2012-08-16 07:52:05 PM
Smoking Crack would be an awful native american name.
 
2012-08-16 07:52:24 PM

TsukasaK: Why the hell does Apple (or any of the claimants, really) get to set the time allotted for testimony? Isn't that a function of the court?
/genuinely curious



RTFA. The judge granted each side 25 hours, exclusive of arguments.
 
2012-08-16 07:57:32 PM
Ah, steves angels are lovingly overloading the jury to push for a favourable decision to further the worthy cause of the almighty Apple

for ever and ever

iMen
 
2012-08-16 08:21:28 PM
Where's Fark's resident USPTO employee to explain why this is a good thing and shows that the US patent system is perfect?

HopScotchNSoda: RTFA. The judge granted each side 25 hours, exclusive of arguments.

And Apple used a time-tested method of getting Samsung to waste their time debunking pointless witnesses. And Samsung fell for it, of course.

namatad: I can see why the judge might have a problem with this behavior


The only way it works is if Apple is so absurdly arrogant as to think their witnesses are foolproof and will fit the 12 minute slots, with Samsung unable to rebut or rebuke anything. But Apple isn't that stupid, they can't be that stupid.
 
2012-08-16 08:26:35 PM

tomcatadam: Where's Fark's resident USPTO employee to explain why this is a good thing and shows that the US patent system is perfect?


I've got a few of them tagged. But it's irrelevant - this is litigation (and specifically, insane numbers of objections to witnesses), and the PTO is on the prosecution side of things, long before any litigation is ever filed or witnesses are called.

The only way it works is if Apple is so absurdly arrogant as to think their witnesses are foolproof and will fit the 12 minute slots, with Samsung unable to rebut or rebuke anything. But Apple isn't that stupid, they can't be that stupid.

Samsung gets to rebut the rebuttal.
 
2012-08-16 08:34:31 PM
My favorite line in the article:

"You filed 75 pages of objections!" said Koh. "What do you mean you didn't mean to burden the court?"

/Apple Fail
 
2012-08-16 08:41:06 PM
That was a hilarious read all the way around.
 
2012-08-16 08:49:35 PM
Fark Apple... If they could, they'd patent the farking egg. Jesus, there is some amount of design that is naturally going to follow, otherwise those cocksmokers would be responsible for stalling development across the planet. I'm sick of these bullshiat corporations and their goddam monopolistic crap. We're the ones who suffer, both the the slobbering iFans, who can't wait to throw their 1 year old iDevice in the trash to spend even more on one with less buttons or more blinking lights than the previous model, and those of us who DON'T want to buy this shiat, but can't find a product because everyone's afraid Apple will drag them into court for the next 50 years.

Farking Apple, can't take their billions upon billions and just be happy that they have a shiat-ton of money, they want a planet full of moronic mouth breathing clones filling up landfills and emptying their wallets on a monthly basis.

They're like Disney and WalMart, anything to bleed the customer dry.
 
2012-08-16 08:54:48 PM
I'm just curious what those witnesses will be able to tell the court in the limited amount of time they will have.
 
2012-08-16 08:58:14 PM

Mikey1969: Fark Apple... If they could, they'd patent the farking egg. Jesus, there is some amount of design that is naturally going to follow, otherwise those cocksmokers would be responsible for stalling development across the planet. I'm sick of these bullshiat corporations and their goddam monopolistic crap. We're the ones who suffer, both the the slobbering iFans, who can't wait to throw their 1 year old iDevice in the trash to spend even more on one with less buttons or more blinking lights than the previous model, and those of us who DON'T want to buy this shiat, but can't find a product because everyone's afraid Apple will drag them into court for the next 50 years.

Farking Apple, can't take their billions upon billions and just be happy that they have a shiat-ton of money, they want a planet full of moronic mouth breathing clones filling up landfills and emptying their wallets on a monthly basis.

They're like Disney and WalMart, anything to bleed the customer dry.


It's all about totally and completely crushing anything that remotely resembles competition by any means possible, in order to preserve their God-gifted Market Share.
 
2012-08-16 08:59:43 PM

mauricecano: Actually she seemed quite restrained, I've seen plenty of judges go off for much less and she has every right to be angry with what Apple pulled. They should have filed those weeks ago.


She has been equally pissed at both parties. Not just Apple.

/haters got to hate
 
2012-08-16 08:59:46 PM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who've been posting this image:

or otherwise claiming Judge Koh is biased for Apple will be in momentarily to apologize.


There's that magical lack of critical reasoning again.
 
2012-08-16 08:59:53 PM

BizarreMan: I'm just curious what those witnesses will be able to tell the court in the limited amount of time they will have.


Other than that Apple invented Everything In Existence, and deserves to drive Samsung and all other competition into oblivion? Nothing.
 
2012-08-16 09:06:40 PM

ClavellBCMI: BizarreMan: I'm just curious what those witnesses will be able to tell the court in the limited amount of time they will have.

Other than that Apple invented Everything In Existence, and deserves to drive Samsung and all other competition into oblivion? Nothing.


Okay, makes sense to call them to the stand then.
 
2012-08-16 09:21:40 PM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who've been posting this image:
[i.imgur.com image 320x448]
or otherwise claiming Judge Koh is biased for Apple will be in momentarily to apologize.

[fourfour.typepad.com image 250x194]


Jesus you're retarded. Why don't you go defend Apple in the ebooks thread?
 
2012-08-16 09:48:05 PM

Mikey1969: Fark Apple... If they could, they'd patent the farking egg.


Um...
 
2012-08-16 09:48:43 PM

change1211: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who've been posting this image:
[i.imgur.com image 320x448]
or otherwise claiming Judge Koh is biased for Apple will be in momentarily to apologize.

[fourfour.typepad.com image 250x194]

Jesus you're retarded. Why don't you go defend Apple in the ebooks thread?


Because I have no interest in defending Apple? I'm defending the unbiased judiciary.
 
2012-08-16 09:49:43 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who've been posting this image:

or otherwise claiming Judge Koh is biased for Apple will be in momentarily to apologize.

There's that magical lack of critical reasoning again.


You're right. Silly of me to assume that anyone calling Judge Koh a paid shill would ever admit that they were wrong. My mistake!
www.lolbrary.com
 
2012-08-16 10:00:02 PM
iLSD, get stoned differently.
 
2012-08-16 10:09:51 PM
Fark Apple, go Samsung.
 
2012-08-16 10:11:41 PM
But if I fark apple we'd end up with weird man-apple hybreds.

Mapples? Applans?
 
2012-08-16 10:43:08 PM

ClavellBCMI: Warlordtrooper: BarkingUnicorn: This does not seem like appropriate judicial temperament.

Given the asinine state of our current IP laws. This judge is far more restrained that I could ever possibly be.

Copyright and patent law in the US is *seriously* farked up, thanks to the Job Creators (TM) wanting it that way, the better to crush anyone who might conceivably compete with them.


You spelled lawyers wrong.
 
2012-08-16 10:44:19 PM
Of course, this is the same Apple who said "No reasonable person would believe our ads."

It's the same Apple who is now being forced to publicly apologize to Samsung in the UK.

The same Apple who tried to sneakily pull their claims of virus immunity.

So maybe the crack would actually help there, chief.
 
2012-08-16 10:55:00 PM
Koh: "How about... '75 pages tonight? DAMMIT, MAN, ARE YOU ON BLOTTER ACID??!' "

Apple lawyer: "No, no...too sixties..might bring up memories of Steve."

Koh: "Ok, ok... 'You want me to do an order on 75 pages tonight? When, unless you're effin' smoking crack, you know that these witnesses are not going to be called?' "

Apple lawyer: "Lose the 'effin' and we're golden."

Koh: "I can almost smell my new ranch house now!"
 
2012-08-16 11:40:50 PM

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who've been posting this image:

or otherwise claiming Judge Koh is biased for Apple will be in momentarily to apologize.

There's that magical lack of critical reasoning again.

You're right. Silly of me to assume that anyone calling Judge Koh a paid shill would ever admit that they were wrong. My mistake!
[www.lolbrary.com image 447x718]


Quite frankly if anyone is a paid shill it's you, not the judge. Apple fans thought she would be biased against Apple because she's Korean. Both sides arguing bias are being ignorant.

As for you, you're just an iTroll.
 
2012-08-16 11:43:01 PM
One thing is clear from this trial: Apple's lawyers have no idea what a rhetorical question is.
 
2012-08-17 12:30:40 AM

ClavellBCMI:

Yeah. Apple wants most of those 20+ witnesses to testify in 4 hours. At the last minute. With a jury that is probably suffering from brain overload at this point.


What they have planned is 4 hours of quickfire 2 minute two line repeats of a witness saying 'samsung ripped apple off' in every conceivable form of words. The hope would be that by that point that will have erased all other thought from the jurists heads. The idea being that the last impression is the most important.
 
2012-08-17 12:34:12 AM

BarkingUnicorn: This does not seem like appropriate judicial temperament.


It is when apple pulled shiat like they did to void witness testimony from the defense, the did it on purpose to burden the judge and for her to extend their time or to postpone, apple is farked and they know it thats why they pulled this shiat.

Also, their statement sounds very much like a smart ass statement directed to the judge, if you really want a case to go your way then you do not piss off the judge.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report