To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Let's start with this one:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jul-31.html
I'm sorry, but you point out bias in a groklaw article by using an article from de Icaza who has a personal beef with the site? The article you point to is also an editorial, and as such contains the authors opinion. You seem to think that opinions and bias are the same thing. They're not. Editorials are opinion pieces. Like the opinion or not. Bias occurs when facts are distorted or left out to reflect the interests of the author. While PJ is certainly opinionated, she does a fairly good job of separating fact from her opinions on the case.
In fact, if you read the site regularly, you would see she often makes positive statements about the law team from the "other side" of the case. She also is usually very honest about the judges as well, pointing out the good and bad no matter which way they rule.
So while all authors have some bias, I don't understand the disdain for the site that exists. At the very least, the site provides unedited and search-able copies of most of the court documents.
Edited 2012-10-04 03:48 UTC
How 'bout taking a juror mentioning his last court experience as an answer to the question of "have you ever been involved in a legal proceeding" as a lie and violation of voire dire?
I can't see how any rational person can make that leap without already having a conclusion they want to occur already set in their head.
Edited 2012-10-03 21:22 UTC
The plot thickens.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108832665/12-04-30-Apple-Samsung-Teksler-...
One of the more notable documents filed with Judge Lucy Koh's court in the Apple versus Samsung post-trial motions is a letter from Apple intellectual property licensing director Boris Teskler to his equivalent at Samsung, Seongwoo Kim. The letter outlines a reciprocal patent agreement more in line with actual fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, rather than Samsung's proposed 2.4 percent rate of the entire device's purchase price.
Apple offered to license its FRAND UMTS patents, provided that Samsung "reciprocally agrees to this same, common royalty base, and same methodological approach to royalty rate, in licensing its declared-essential patents to Apple." Apple's estimates placed the price at $0.33 per device per royalty for use of the Apple patent portfolio, with the rate applied "to all Samsung units that Apple has not otherwise licensed." Apple requested a response by May 7, 2012, and no agreement was made.





Member since:
2005-06-29
I beg to differ, they have screwed it more than once and never taking it back.
Examples?