Comments on: Jobs’ vow to destroy Android fair game at Motorola trial

By: Sasa Marinic

Sasa Marinic — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:15:36 +0000

Reblogged this on Sasa Marinic.

By: dang1970

dang1970 — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:42:18 +0000

Another Steve Jobs nugget, maybe for another courtroom: The customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway

By: ViewRoyal

ViewRoyal — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 16:08:39 +0000

It is understandable that Apple (and any intelligent person) would consider Steve Jobs’ comments about Android to be irrelevant, and not want them to side-track the proceedings.

But over all, Mr. Jobs’ comments do reinforce Apple’s position in this case, and so it should not negatively affect the outcome in any way.

Since Mr. Jobs is no longer with us, and Apple Inc. has been managed and run by others since last year, his comments may be interesting but they are not relevant to this case.

By: Harvey Lubin

Harvey Lubin — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 16:05:39 +0000

It is understandable that Apple (and any intelligent person) would consider Steve Jobs’ comments about Android to be irrelevant, and not want them to side-track the proceedings.

But over all, Mr. Jobs’ comments do reinforce Apple’s position in this case, and so it should not negatively affect the outcome in any way.

Since Mr. Jobs is no longer with us, and Apple Inc. has been managed and run by others since last year, his comments may be interesting but they are not relevant to this case.

By: mo

mo — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:56:50 +0000

so again, its hearsay.

By: Bob Bigellow

Bob Bigellow — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 01:02:51 +0000

No, it wouldn’t be hearsay. Hearsay would be someone saying, “Steve Jobs told me that Eric Schmidt punched him” as evidence that Eric Schmidt punched him. It would be considered hearsay because the person speaking did not actually witness an event, they were merely repeating the recollection of someone else witnessing an event.

In this case, what was written in the biography was direct testimony to what the witness (the author) heard Steve Jobs say and it was written down. They might get the author onto the witness stand.

By: milindrao

milindrao — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 00:03:52 +0000

Rules of Hearsay exceptions.

(5) Statement of a deceased person. In actions, suits or proceedings by or against the representatives of deceased persons, including proceedings for the probate of wills, any statement of the deceased, whether oral or written, shall not be excluded as hearsay provided the Trial Judge shall first find as a fact that the statement was made by decedent, and that it was made in good faith and on decedent’s personal knowledge.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:26:49 +0000

Looks like stevies words are going to come back to bite apple in the rear. If he had gotten cancer treatment instead of relying on hippie medicine he would be here to see this. Too bad that egomaniac didn’t get to see it.

By: James

James — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:19:41 +0000

They would be admissions of a party opponent and excluded from the hearsay rules.

By: Orphicdragon

Orphicdragon — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:16:30 +0000

Just a thought, did you consider actually looking into the facts here or are you just lazy??

Walter Isaacson has well over 40 interviews with Jobs, and according to him many are on tape. So no, a verifiable statement knowingly made by Jobs is not hearsay. Out of context? You don’t even know what the context is.

As for “how can the judge…” he’s the judge genius. You explain things to a judge, not vice versa. Go look the word “j-u-d-g-e” up, that should solve the mystery for you.