To: sylvester80 who wrote (20789 ) 8/2/2012 4:41:51 PM From: zax 2 Recommendations Respond to Groklaw clearly turning on Apple, due to its behavior in and out of court. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012080117581118 Samsung's multiple references to the jury in its statement make plain its intent that the jurors in our case learn of arguments the Court has excluded through the press. The press reports cited above have characterized Samsung's actions as "flouting" this Court's orders, and Apple agrees. Ah, but who gave Forbes and AllThingsD that impression? Did Apple directly or via a proxy present it that way? Just asking. And if you read the Forbes article, for example, you find, "Apple’s lawyer Harold McElhinny called the move the most blatant example of contempt of court it had ever seen and an intentional effort to 'pollute the jury.'” Anyway, it's ridiculous because the jury will never see it, but Apple wants sanctions First rectangles with rounded corners, and now this. Apple's brand is at risk, in my view. And it's really sad to watch the company do this to itself. I felt the same about Oracle's self-destruction in the Oracle v. Google litigation. Sadly, nobody listens when high-priced lawyers are whispering in their ears. SCO's hair was on fire But Apple wants sanctions against Samsung. And that kind of extremism is exactly why Apple's name is ending up mud with so many of us, and even more so now that Samsung's side of the story is finally being told. There are two courtrooms in this litigation, one in California and one in the court of public opinion. Samsung handled the first by making sure its objection to the judge's refusal to let all the evidence be heard by the jury. So that isn't what the public statement was about. It's about us, you and me, and what we think about this company who feels genuinely aggrieved that its name has been dragged through the mud. And I think this is a warning to Apple's lawyers too. You can say quite a lot in a trial without having to worry about defamation, but there is a line. And Quinn feels his reputation, as well as Samsung's, has been harmed. As Quinn put is: As this Court has acknowledged, this is a case with genuine and substantial commercial and public interest and with enormous potential commercial impact. The media has been reporting in salacious detail Apple’s allegations of Samsung’s supposed “copying”, causing injury to Samsung’s public reputation as a company. Moreover, Apple’s baseless and public assertions that Samsung’s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks. You do not see this every day. He's risking sanctions for his client. And if I am ever in need of a lawyer, I want *this* guy.
