News Focus
News Focus
icon url

nyt

10/14/21 7:42 PM

#105844 RE: Spyke37 #105842

I would like to see more of what she was saying that surrounded that remark, so as to not take it out of context. As a general statement, I don't think it's that bad to say, certainly doesn't live up to "an overarching tenet", nor does it seem to equate to much of a conflict of interest. As to the apple thing you mentioned, apparently it doesn't apply to her, otherwise someone would have brought it up in court, no? Apparently no issue there. And, as ive noted before, she has ruled against Apple sometimes plus her infamous "smoking crack" remark she made against them. I think it's more convenience than substance, these 2 things. Again, super low reversal rate, no censures I'm aware of, and continuously moving up in the ranks. Again, I'm no fan of hers, just trying to be fair & show more respect than some have as she is waaay accomplished. I'm not saying she has been entirely fair or not w/vplm. I'm not into that angle so much.
icon url

gastric

10/14/21 8:27 PM

#105849 RE: Spyke37 #105842

Read the transcript. Koh was specifically referring to abstract see-what-sticks [patent troll] cases filed with no specificity.

Dropbox link to the transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mh0qye1d8xk02tn/2018114%20Voip-Pal%20%20case%2018-CV-04523%20transcript.pdf?dl=0

Download the file locally, it's easier to search, copy text from, etc. than the Dropbox UI.

...openly declaring that she hates these types of cases...