Antitrust fallout: retailers sue conspirators

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because they actually had experience dealing with Judge Cote? Because Judge Cote wrote a majority of her opinion the the Apple case before the trial actually started? Because Judge Cote's comments in the case indicated that she was dismissing or ignoring evidence that didn't agree with what she went into the case believing? Because, there are a lot of judges like that in the legal system? There are a lot of reasons that I find the lawyers comments believable. As I said, we will see how the appeals turn out.

And perhaps because they confirm your bias? Don't pretend that doesn't play a part. After all, I'm sure there's lawyers (who have experience dealing with judge Cote) who DON'T think those any of those things. Do you ignore their expert opinions simply because they aren't speaking out publically about her?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because they actually had experience dealing with Judge Cote? Because Judge Cote wrote a majority of her opinion the the Apple case before the trial actually started? Because Judge Cote's comments in the case indicated that she was dismissing or ignoring evidence that didn't agree with what she went into the case believing? Because, there are a lot of judges like that in the legal system? There are a lot of reasons that I find the lawyers comments believable. As I said, we will see how the appeals turn out.

The comments that she made were after she had seen all the evidence because all the evidence must be given before the pretrial. Because this is the point of the pretrial: to determine which evidence is admitted at trial.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because they actually had experience dealing with Judge Cote? Because Judge Cote wrote a majority of her opinion the the Apple case before the trial actually started? Because Judge Cote's comments in the case indicated that she was dismissing or ignoring evidence that didn't agree with what she went into the case believing? Because, there are a lot of judges like that in the legal system? There are a lot of reasons that I find the lawyers comments believable. As I said, we will see how the appeals turn out.

That's interesting, do you actually know these lawyers? Can you provide their names? The only source for these allegations I've seen so far are a few anonymous posts from people claiming to be lawyers with experience dealing with Judge Cote. I don't accept that as a reliable source.

[fjtorres]

Oh, okay, here it is:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0OY0ZW20140617

They did settle.
(With fingers crossed, though.)

The prospect of summary judgment and treble damages finally git through the re a lity distortion.

Last July, a federal court found Apple liable for colluding with the publishers after a separate non-jury trial in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Judge Cote found that Apple took part in a price-fixing conspiracy to fight online retailer Amazon.com Inc's dominance in the e-book market.

Apple is appealing that decision and Monday's settlement is contingent on the outcome of that appeal.

"As set forth in the memorandum of understanding, any payment to be made by Apple under the settlement agreement will be contingent on the outcome of that appeal," Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer, wrote in a letter to the judge.

Considering the odds of that appeal succeeding are...low... the odds of the AG's getting to preen this fall look good.

[DiapDealer]

So Apple will either be vindicated, or the victims of a corrupt system, then right?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The comments that she made were after she had seen all the evidence because all the evidence must be given before the pretrial. Because this is the point of the pretrial: to determine which evidence is admitted at trial.

No. People testify in trials. If all the evidence was given before the trial, there would be no need for trials.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Barcey

That's interesting, do you actually know these lawyers? Can you provide their names? The only source for these allegations I've seen so far are a few anonymous posts from people claiming to be lawyers with experience dealing with Judge Cote. I don't accept that as a reliable source.

I see, now we are playing the internet "anything you say must be invalid" game. Any evidence or rational is wrong by definition since it doesn't match what you hear in your echo chamber. I understand. Well, sorry, I have no interest in playing your game. We will see how it all turns out as the appeals go on.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

We will see how it all turns out as the appeals go on.

I must say, you've set yourself up very nicely for a "heads; I win/tails; it was all rigged" result.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I see, now we are playing the internet "anything you say must be invalid" game. Any evidence or rational is wrong by definition since it doesn't match what you hear in your echo chamber. I understand. Well, sorry, I have no interest in playing your game. We will see how it all turns out as the appeals go on.

No, what I'm saying is that the only source for the allegations against her have been sourced to this site which are all anonymous posters.
www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1403

Hardly a reliable source and I wouldn't trust it. If they are actually lawyers and if they have actually dealt with her then I would attribute it to bitter losers and happy winners. I'll note that there are also positive reviews of her and the preparation she does but somehow that doesn't get referenced. Basically I trust it as must as product reviews on Amazon.

If you have a better source for the allegations I'd like to hear it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No. People testify in trials. If all the evidence was given before the trial, there would be no need for trials.

You don't have to believe me, you can read about the pretrial procedures for yourself: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson...Procedures.pdf

In wikipedia:

Discovery, in the law of the United States, is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When discovery requests are objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

As for the "there would be no need for trials" part (again wikipedia):

Civil discovery under United States federal law is wide-ranging and can involve any material which is relevant to the case except information which is privileged, information which is the work product of the opposing party, or certain kinds of expert opinions. (Criminal discovery rules may differ from those discussed here.) Electronic discovery or "e-discovery" is used when the material is stored on electronic media.

In practice, most civil cases in the United States are settled or resolved after discovery without actual trial. After discovery, both sides often are in agreement about the relative strength and weaknesses of each side's case and this often results in a settlement which eliminates the expense and risks of a trial. Another common way of the resolution without trial is a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You don't have to believe me, you can read about the pretrial procedures for yourself: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson...Procedures.pdf

In wikipedia:


As for the "there would be no need for trials" part (again wikipedia):

I'm failing to see in that where it says that all evidence and all testimony must be given to the judge before the trial. In appeals, it is true that the evidence is presented in the appeals documents but that isn't the case in the initial trial. Yes, you do have discovery. In criminal cases, the prosecutor is obligated to turn over any evidence that might point to the innocence of the defendant, however the defense is under no such obligation.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Barcey

No, what I'm saying is that the only source for the allegations against her have been sourced to this site which are all anonymous posters.
www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1403

Hardly a reliable source and I wouldn't trust it. If they are actually lawyers and if they have actually dealt with her then I would attribute it to bitter losers and happy winners. I'll note that there are also positive reviews of her and the preparation she does but somehow that doesn't get referenced. Basically I trust it as must as product reviews on Amazon.

If you have a better source for the allegations I'd like to hear it.

If you want to look at it that way, you are welcome to. If you are looking for an on the record comment about any sitting judge from a lawyer who might end up in front of them again, then you are going to be looking for a long, long time. IMPO, there is a sufficient accumulation of comments about her over the years to say that there is a credible doubt about her, and it's hardly from one source. That is simply the most readily accessible public source. Frankly, the allegation is not all that uncommon. If you wish to believe otherwise, then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you want to look at it that way, you are welcome to. If you are looking for an on the record comment about any sitting judge from a lawyer who might end up in front of them again, then you are going to be looking for a long, long time. IMPO, there is a sufficient accumulation of comments about her over the years to say that there is a credible doubt about her, and it's hardly from one source. That is simply the most readily accessible public source. Frankly, the allegation is not all that uncommon. If you wish to believe otherwise, then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

... other than credible claims that have actual identifiable sources. How convenient that you can claim everyone is too afraid of her to say anything.

It doesn't prove your point.

Thus, in the absence of any proof one way or the other, we shall assume there is nothing wrong.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm failing to see in that where it says that all evidence and all testimony must be given to the judge before the trial. In appeals, it is true that the evidence is presented in the appeals documents but that isn't the case in the initial trial. Yes, you do have discovery. In criminal cases, the prosecutor is obligated to turn over any evidence that might point to the innocence of the defendant, however the defense is under no such obligation.

Why would the defense want to hide evidence of the defendant's innocence?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Why would the defense want to hide evidence of the defendant's innocence?

So the defendant can win a new trial on appeal after they're fired, sued, and disbarred for conspiring with an evil judge, of course.

Hey, Perry Mason did it all the time, embarrasing the DA and the police by dramatically solving the case in mid-trial...

Snark aside: it does happen but only rarely under explicit instructions from the defendant and only when the evidence of "innocence" convicts them of a graver, more heinous crime. Like a habitual thief being charged of a burglary at a time he was murdering somebody else. Again, you see it mostly on cop shows.