Judge Asks if Apple Attorneys Are Smoking Crack

| News

Continuing to be frustrated at Apple and Samsung attorneys, Judge Lucy Koh told an Apple attorney that he had to be smoking crack if he thought he could get through a list of rebuttal witnesses in the time allotment the company has left. While the attorney insisted he had smoked no crack, he also insisted that he could get through 22 witnesses fast enough.

Crack Kills

TMO Artist’s Rendition of What That Might Look Like

Judge Koh has been iron fisted about how long the trial will last, giving both sides a specific allotment of time. Apple finished presenting its case earlier this week, while Samsung finished arguing Thursday afternoon. Apple will have the opportunity to present rebuttal witnesses in the next phase of the trial, which is what Judge Koh was tense about.

Apple’s list of 22 rebuttal witnesses combined with objections from both sides about each others actions added up to some 75 new pages of court filings.

“Unless you are smoking crack you know these witnesses are [not] going to be called,” Judge Koh said, according to AllThingsD.

Apple attorney Bill Lee denied using the drug in question, saying, “First, I am not smoking crack, I can promise you that.”

He said that his team had timed the testimony in question and could get through most of those witnesses in the remaining hours they had.

Judge Koh wasn’t having it, however, saying, “We’re wasting the jury’s time. You are being unreasonable.” She added, “Come on, come on. This is ridiculous.”

This drew an effort at apology by Mr. Lee, who said that his team would waive some of its objections, and added, “We didn’t mean to burden the court.”

Judge Koh still wasn’t having it, exclaiming, “What are you talking about you don’t want to burden the court?” She again held up the 75 pages of new documents that were actually filed by both parties, and not just Apple, that she believes argued to the contrary.

According to The Verge, Apple then agreed to pare down its rebuttal list.

We would like to remind our readers that crack kills.

Image made with help from Shutterstock.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

iVoid

I’m starting to wonder if the Judge might be smoking something.

Or maybe getting a little giddy about being in the spotlight of a big trial.

stilep

Yeah, its not like a judge to speak harshly towards apple.  Normally they just roll over and award patents.

What?  There were rectangles and touchscreens in the world before apple??

I applaud her for not taking any crap, and not letting it go on forever because the trial itself is a joke.

wab95

We would like to remind our readers that crack kills.


Sounds as if Judge Koh just said, ‘No’.

daemon

I love that idiom!

Lee Dronick

I think her honor has been watching too much Judge Judy.

tuscmat

The judge is getting tired of both sides antics. She’s putting up with it because shr doesn’t want to get overturned on appeal for the way she conducted the trial. Both sides should have been sanctioned at least but Samsung should be in contempt for releasing discovery to the public. All in all though they’re both acting like children.

RonMacGuy

I applaud her for not taking any crap, and not letting it go on forever because the trial itself is a joke.

Yep, you must be an expert or something.

Intruder

Yeah, its not like a judge to speak harshly towards apple.? Normally they just roll over and award patents.

What?? There were rectangles and touchscreens in the world before apple??

I applaud her for not taking any crap, and not letting it go on forever because the trial itself is a joke.

Obvious troll is obvious.

John Dingler, artist

Y’all remember Judge Ito of the OJ Simpson trial? I do. It’s a bad memory filled with sighs of permissiveness toward each and every request by OJ’s lawyers. No judge in a high profile case is as bad as he was.  Kohl entertains with her admonishments.

God, this CAPTCHA is a bear.

iJack

I think Judge Koh is leaving the door wide open for an appeal.  A judge can’t just deny witnesses willy-nilly.  This is a complex case with high stakes.  The plaintiff, the defendant and the judge all knew before this trial started, what was going to be said, and for the most part, how many witnesses were to be called.

What’s the rush?

daemon

Rebuttal witnesses weren’t on the list before trial started…

Lee Dronick

She could have done better than the smoking crack reference “I am not optimisitic that you can get through that many witnesses within the alloted time” or words to that effect.

I agree John that the captchas can be difficult to read. I don’t have to use them often, usually when I am on a borrowed computer.

See today’s Joy of Tech comic

RonMacGuy

I think Judge Koh is leaving the door wide open for an appeal.

No matter how well a judge closes/locks the door, it doesn’t really matter.  The losing party will appeal.  Guaranteed.  Or the winning party will appeal if the amount awarded isn’t high enough.  There will most definitely be an appeal.

If Samsung loses, do you honestly think they will say, “Oh, alright.  The judge was right.  We’ll just write the check and be on our way.”?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Obvious troll is obvious.

Someone raises an objection, so they’re labeled a troll by a forum admin. Stay classy Intruder.

RonMacGuy

Stay classy Intruder.

Stay classy?  Coming from the guy who has recently used the following language (and I quote):

“...they?ve been trading cigarettes and hand [CENSORED] for.”

“would show up in a banana hammock with his gut hanging over and a tramp stamp visible through his back hair.”

Wow, there’s real class there.

PSMacintosh

This is the first time, in reading the news of this case, that I am concerned, wary, and disappointed in Judge Koh.
Prior to this, her strictness and sharpness has sounded appropriate and justified.
When the ultimate goal of the trial is supposed to be determining the TRUTH and obtaining JUSTICE, absolute time limits (and absolute word/page limits) sometimes do NOT make logical sense. When the court system has these types of absolute, boilerplate time rules/systems, it definitely contributes to the problem occurance of bad/wrong decisions and injustice.
These “rules” are especially disturbing when they are applied to the “answering” side of a case—after one side has thrown out 100 points of contention in 100 seconds in a machine-gun fashion and then the other side is not allowed to refute each of those contentions (which refutation could take 10 minutes for each contention) because of a pre-determined absolute time limitation.
The amount of time should be geared to the amount of work necessary to completely address the issues presented.
So if a judge does not control the number of points (contentions, issues) allowed to be thrown out, then the judge should not be allowed to limit the time needed to present rebuttal of those points presented.  In other words, IT IS THE JUDGE’S FAULT for allowing the machine-gun presentation in the first place (and for not controlling, limiting and focusing on the relevant essential issues)........and the opposite side should be allowed whatever time it takes to address those raised issues, but still reasonable amount of time per contention.
But who said that the court system really cares about justice or right decisions—often the system is much more concerned about “finishing” and “moving on”  and counting a completion as justice.
The “crack” comment sounds very flippant and, frankly, a time-waster in itself (in that it needed to be responded to).  She should have better control of her mouth, especially to be a “judge”!
We can only HOPE that the issues are all properly and fully resolved by this trial so that ALL companies can handle their similar patent issues correctly.

Log-in to comment