And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.

Please elaborate. How is perfectly justified evidence exclusion grounds to an appeal?

The exclusion of the evidence is justified, you are correct. However, that applies to both parties, equally. Once one party has presented the evidence and it has been allowed, both parties can use it. Samsung presented it, it was not allowed. Apple presented it, it was allowed. Samsung made reference to it after Apple presented it and it was allowed, and Samsung was told it was not allowed; it had already been allowed at this point, Koh is just on crack.

Inadmissible evidence is only accepted in a trial when an opposing party presents the trial with inadmissible evidence themselves. Apple did not present the trial with inadmissible evidence, so the "opening the door" doctrine does not apply.

Possibly waiting until jury selection/direction was finalized because then you cannot argue the point about "swaying the jury" with public material. The jurors are not allowed to research the case using any other material than what is presented in court. If they do, they are removed from the jury.

Of course you can argue that, it's called a mistrial, the jurors aren't sequestered! Plus by going to the media Samsung is making it extremely hard for the jury to actually avoid learning about the subject, in contempt to court. This isn't going to end well for them.

Exactly what is the reason for choosing to suppress the evidence? I've been trying to figure that out since this started, but there is no explanation (that I could find, anyway) of why something as seemingly germane to the case as original design documents that predate what you are accused of copying would not be allowed.

They missed the deadline. If the evidence was that important, how come Samsung, a company that has already been found guilty of destroying evidence even against court order telling them to retain it, forgot about it for so long?

That's not how it actually began, and you really should RTFA. Quinn's declaration is a nice read.

Please inform yourself, the Samsung bullshit propaganda is affecting your brain. As I mentioned, this is how the whole thing started. If you don't know the facts, refrain from posting. Also, Groklaw is an extremely biased source, and a declaration from the accused Samsung lawyer isn't exactly trustworthy either. Next time, stick to less biased sources.

A little hard to influence a jury that's already been sequestered, isn't it?

They haven't been sequestered, only selected and ordered to avoid consulting the media regarding this issue, an order that Samsung is making extremely hard to comply with, in contempt to court. Secondly, Quinn brought up the excluded evidence in the court room, which got him reprimanded by the Judge with a sanction threat, and that's what started the whole thing.

Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.

Those images were used because it came out after the iPhone. The "problem" (Samsung's problem) is that somehow they found a way to forget to file key evidence in this case before the deadline. This was their fault, the exclusion of the evidence is perfectly justified.

Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.

You are incorrect. Apple did not introduce inadmissible evidence in the trial, so this is not "opening the door".

The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls.

Where has she failed?

The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business.

Yes it is, it's called contempt to court, and in this case can be taken as an attempt to influence the jury using excluded evidence since the jury isn't sequestered. Quinn's attempt to bring up this evidence in the court room after it was excluded adds further credence to this intend. Lastly, the evidence was excluded because samsung failed to meet the submission schedule, it is perfectly justified.

Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

She's not going to decide on anything. That's what the jury is there for, and you can't appeal a jury's decision without being able to claim mistrial (i.e.: claim that the jury was in some way tainted by influence from the media).

I don't see how. That was their statement about being pissed that the evidence didn't get admitted. As the Groklaw article said, Samsung is fighting Apple in two courts now, and one of those is public opinion. I think this side of things requires they make their arguments in public. In addition, the judge denied sealing all the documents, so what else to do be release them yourself.

Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence, that's actually how all this began as well as why the Judge threatened that lawyer with sanctions.

Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

What bias? No decisions were made yet, and the decision to suppress that "evidence" is perfectly justified!

Dummy. How they take it affects correct delivery. Accurate communication requires at least two people. You are clearly incapable of such.

While that is true, that doesn't make me responsible for the misunderstanding. As you mentioned (and well), accurate communication requires at least two people, and both has responsibilities. The sender is responsible for ensuring that the message is clear, and the receiver is responsible for interpreting it right, so, again, NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM,

Thats why you buy yourself a Bitfenix prodigy. You'd probably be amazed to find that the latest top-end consumer CPUs and a 680 will work extremely nicely on a Mini-ITX board, which is not all that large.

It's not just the box, it's also all the peripherals. A laptop has everything built-in.

If you don't care about the end result, why get involved in the first place?

I seldom get involved in anything except when I see people complain about something that I have a formed opinion about (in this case I am more interested in knowing whether I am right or in having my opinion refuted) or when my judgement is explicitly requested (in which case I would not be honest if I sugar coated my opinion). It is extremely uncommon for me to criticize anything directly unless it has a direct impact in my life and I can absolutely not adjust,

Linux Desktop? Nope. Desktops are dying anyway, almost everyone has moved to laptops.

This is unfortunate. Ever since I became a nomad (and switched to Apple) that I miss actually shopping for desktop hardware. Every time I enter a retail store and look at the high-end video cards I really really want to build a desktop, but it can't fit my luggage... The desktop PC is far from being dead and I am already missing it, I think it's gonna be one of those things that I will remember from early 21st century just like I miss tinkering with analog electronics in the 80s (no, I'm not old, I was born in that decade).

Year of the Linux game console, perhaps?

Rumor has it that Valve is building a console with PC hardware, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility. They feel that the Windows and Mac App Stores represent a threat to Steam as a third party, so this may be part of their strategy to build a platform of their own. Blizzard has expressed similar feelings, which makes sense if we consider the rumor that they had and probably still have a third party service like Steam planned for battle.net (at least according to the leaked schedules which have been quite accurate, though battle.net third parties is overdue at this point).