Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

czakk wrote:
Court tv is mostly state stuff I think.

Mostly salacious stuff (or otherwise interesting to the various gossip distributors). Remember, Court TV is a commercial venture, so there has to be mass appeal to what they televise. IP cases, especially those regarding niche products will not likely make it to the level of interest to qualify.

Once the trial actually starts, it shouldn't take that long. Worse case scenario would be a month or so, but more likely half that. The way the transcripts are set up though, you can't normally access the transcripts while the trial is ongoing. Members of the legal teams can, as can certain media representatives - the rest of the public though doesn't normally get access to them for several months after the case has finished.

can audio recorders not be taken into court rooms? I know cameras generally can't.

 Aerethan wrote:
can audio recorders not be taken into court rooms? I know cameras generally can't.

Per allowance of the Judge in most cases, in terms of both tape recorder and television cameras.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
can audio recorders not be taken into court rooms? I know cameras generally can't.

Per allowance of the Judge in most cases, in terms of both tape recorder and television cameras.

So we can hope that someone local records the proceedings and uploads them somewhere. That would be awesome.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
IP cases, especially those regarding niche products will not likely make it to the level of interest to qualify.

I promise you, civil trials are mind numbing.

Having been to the federal building for the beginning of this circus, no the public cannot bring any type of recording device in unless the judge makes a specific allowance. Even taking out a standard cell phone in court can get you held for contempt and I believe you aren't even allowed to bring cell phones with camera functions into the building.

One of the dates I was there they had media present for the Blago trial and you needed a specific clearance for that. (his trial was in a differant section of the building)

We'll all have to wait for the recaps to be posted. Having been there several times it's incredibly boring and you won't be missing much.


The only thing I'd want to attend for is the "I want to hang myself" look on the juror's faces when they realise they are going to spend a week or more reviewing details of plastic men. derp.

Jurys are horrible, they are made up two groups: #1 those with nothing better to do #2 people too dumb to think up an excuse to get out of jury duty. Neither one has much to impress with IMO.

There is a 3. People who feel like they are doing it because of their civic duty. Not a snide and condescending remark, I know but they do exist.

 paulson games wrote:
Jurys are horrible, they are made up two groups: #1 those with nothing better to do #2 people too dumb to think up an excuse to get out of jury duty. Neither one has much to impress with IMO.

I hate this attitude. I know it's and old joke, but come on. I do my civic duty every time I'm asked. Yes, it helps that my job allows me the time off and pays me for it, so I can understand that it can cause a hardship for people that don't have that option - but to me that's a valid reason. Just not wanting to be there isn't valid to me.

Agreed. I definitely don't see the 'juries are dumb' attitude in Australia. I've been called for jury duty once (though never made it on to the jury) and never once thought about attempting to get out of it.
Although it doesn't help that in America you can get juries for civil cases >< thats just weird.

I realize it's silly to look at a thunder hammer and read "star-viking war god's smashy stick," but if it'll protect bitz sites from GWs zealous legal team, why not do it?

EDIT: Unless of course GW just hasn't gotten to all the more clever sites yet*

Thats like AEM selling an "air sucky filter tube of awesome."

Trasvi wrote:
Agreed. I definitely don't see the 'juries are dumb' attitude in Australia. I've been called for jury duty once (though never made it on to the jury) and never once thought about attempting to get out of it.
Although it doesn't help that in America you can get juries for civil cases >< thats just weird.

In the US, you do have to pay a jury fee if you desire a trial by jury in a civil case, most of the time. So its really more a service offered by the Court in settling civil disputes, in much the same way that courts will provide arbitrators.

 paulson games wrote:
Having been to the federal building for the beginning of this circus, no the public cannot bring any type of recording device in unless the judge makes a specific allowance. Even taking out a standard cell phone in court can get you held for contempt and I believe you aren't even allowed to bring cell phones with camera functions into the building.

This is why I still use an iPad 1. Those blessed devices have no camera so you are often allowed to have them in a courtroom.

weeble1000 wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
Having been to the federal building for the beginning of this circus, no the public cannot bring any type of recording device in unless the judge makes a specific allowance. Even taking out a standard cell phone in court can get you held for contempt and I believe you aren't even allowed to bring cell phones with camera functions into the building.

This is why I still use an iPad 1. Those blessed devices have no camera so you are often allowed to have them in a courtroom.

they do have microphones though, which makes them a no-go in court over here too, sadly (found out the hard way, not having a physical notepad with me )

weeble1000 wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
Having been to the federal building for the beginning of this circus, no the public cannot bring any type of recording device in unless the judge makes a specific allowance. Even taking out a standard cell phone in court can get you held for contempt and I believe you aren't even allowed to bring cell phones with camera functions into the building.

This is why I still use an iPad 1. Those blessed devices have no camera so you are often allowed to have them in a courtroom.

I do the same thing. It is the reason I would never get a newer version of the Ipad if I can avoid it.

Oh, and congratulations to 100 pages of civil discussion of this delicate topic.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Oh, and congratulations to 100 pages of civil discussion of this delicate topic.

Hear! Hear!

This thread remains one of my favorites for exactly this reason.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Oh, and congratulations to 100 pages of civil discussion of this delicate topic.

I wouldn't try selling those, you might get sued

OK. Going forward, self-congratulatory messages are going to be considered Off-Topic Spam.

What's the current timeline look like? They're getting close to having an actual trial by jury for this (something I really would not have expected to happen).

When are they set to go to trial?

From what I understand there isn't a specific date yet, only that it will start in December.

But jury selection will come first, and I don't have any clue how long that takes.

At this point the only things I'm interested in are the summary judgements and the case after opening arguments.

I thought the informed comment made above said that a trial by jury almost certainly wouldn't happen?

Jury selection can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days, depending on the number of people that the judge thinks they need and also based on the number of people each side throws out.

GW asked for a trial by jury though so I don't think they can change on that at this stage. It's what they wanted, though it was suggested elsewhere that this was another tactic to intimidate opposition by making things even more expensive to mount a defence.

Iirc both sides requested trial by jury so unless one party drops out trial by jury it shall be. As for the postulated date iirc going back a year now it was mooted for the dec 7th ish.

rigeld2 wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
Jurys are horrible, they are made up two groups: #1 those with nothing better to do #2 people too dumb to think up an excuse to get out of jury duty. Neither one has much to impress with IMO.

I hate this attitude. I know it's and old joke, but come on. I do my civic duty every time I'm asked. Yes, it helps that my job allows me the time off and pays me for it, so I can understand that it can cause a hardship for people that don't have that option - but to me that's a valid reason. Just not wanting to be there isn't valid to me.

I'll parrot this point. Each and every time I've received a summons I've reported for jury duty and performed my civic responsibility. I don't particularly enjoy the interruption to my normal routine, but I do it nevertheless as it's essential to make sure the system continues to work as intended.

I've happily attended jury duty as it's an important civic responibility, and will do so again if called

(Things have improved in the UK with far fewer folk being allowed to duck out)

but acting as a duty for a civil squabble ? That's just insane, and jury 'selection' just makes it worse.

If I were to be summoned for jury duty, I would go, but I would inform the court that I intend to exercise my right to practice jury nullification if I deem it necessary. And that I would explain to my fellow jurors what their rights are related to jury nullification as well.

I can't imagine a prosecutor who would ever let me sit as part of the jury after hearing that.

I definitely don't support juries for civil cases. The people deciding those need to be experts on the applicable law, not just whomever can be swayed by either side's narrative the most.

 Pacific wrote:
I thought the informed comment made above said that a trial by jury almost certainly wouldn't happen?

I don't recall any informed comment that would lead to that conclusion. Barring a settlement of some form prior to the trial - the jury trial will happen. GW may or may not be inclined to offer an attractive settlement depending on the outcome of the summary judgement motions. It is unlikely that CHS will be inclined to accept it though without it being an extremely attractive settlement at this point though as the primary motivating factors which would make them inclined to seek a settlement are negated through pro bono representation.

Again though, if GW were to throw up a 7 figure number...CHS would be hard pressed to reject the offer no matter how principled they might be in seeing this through and if things look badly for GW based on the judges comments during the summary judgement, GW counsel may well recommend that as the cheaper option in the long run.

A small pile of money to prevent a judgement being actually issued against them will allow them to more or less maintain the existing status quo of GW using C&D letters combined with various other legal tactics (DMCA take down orders and what not) to keep their particular lock in place. However, should the court issue a judgement that breaks their lock (especially if the court ruled on the potential Design Right issue) would cost GW 7 figures plus a year in losses - not to mention the damage to their licensing potential and other long term losses.

I think I know the answer, but can CHs counsel change their mind on the pro bono representation?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
I thought the informed comment made above said that a trial by jury almost certainly wouldn't happen?

I don't recall any informed comment that would lead to that conclusion.

OK my bad! Read through again and it was to do with the reasons why GW originally requested a trial by jury, rather than it not being likely to happen.

Can't imagine GW offering a settlement to be honest. That would require them to make a concession or acknowledgement of some sort, which I don't think is within the vocabulary of their company culture.