Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
This article has a number of links in it, yet when I follow the links, many are no longer valid, though they were when I first read the article almost a year ago. For example, I can no longer pull up the original Elmer-Dewitt articles, the page comes up, but there is no article. I don't know if there is an issue on my end, or if the articles have aged off the fortune server.
|
Google and you shall find:
https://fortunebrainstormtech.wordpr...e-cote/page/2/
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Eyes of the beholder. You draw one conclusion from it and many others draw a different conclusion. I think that it's equally valid to draw the conclusion that clear language of what she says means that she was writing a draft of her final opinion, rather than some sort of summary notes of the evidence like you seem to imply. Some of the analysis of the opinion that I have seen says that only a small part of the opinion refers to evidence presented in the trial rather than pre-trial and most of that is simply her rebuttal of Apple's final argument, which supports the idea that much was written prior to the trial. Both are supportable opinions, but I find the later more likely.
|
Your conclusion is completely invalid.
Quote:
|
The Court’s procedures for non-jury proceedings were discussed in detail at conferences held on June 22 and October 26, 2012, and May 8, 2013. As the parties were informed, the Court prepared a draft opinion in advance of the bench trial based on the witness affidavits and other documents submitted with the pretrial order and the arguments of counsel in their trial memoranda.
|
(^emphasis mine)
For one thing it is clearly stated that the judge discussed the court's procedures for non-jury proceedings, and Apple didn't object to them. For another, as I pointed out in post #117, the judge's study of the witness affidavits benefited Apple on one occasion.