Author: marichulambino

Pls view the About page found in one of the widgets at the foot of this page https://marichulambino.com/ to see the profile. Tnx.
messages

Kung ang meron ka ay lakas, tapang, sipag, talino bilang puhunan — at hindi ka may-ari ng kumpanya, negosyo o bahagi ng management: Kasama ka dito: Lahat tayo ay manggagawa. Mabuhay ang lahat ng nagtatrabaho, gumagawa, lumilikha! #LaborDay2021 ##MayoUno2021

Translation : If what you have is your boundless energy, your undauntedness, industry, talent, and skill as your wealth and investment, and you don’t own the business or company and not part of management : This is for you : We are all workers : A salute to all who work,

toil,

and create! #LaborDay2021

Para sa lahat ng nagtatrabaho,
nawalan ng trabaho

o binawasan ng trabaho at sweldo,
pinagkaitan at pinahirapan

ngayong pandemya at delubyo!

Pakikiisa sa lahat ngayong Mayo uno!

messages

ATA oral arguments: SolGen delivered a “speech”, then asked his assistants to answer questions from the justices. (“Kayo sumagot nyan”). Here’s a great story on oral arguments litigation lore, 1966, US vs. Adams, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the inventor, physically demonstrated the invention in open court (from the syllabus of LLM Prof. EJ Baranda)

If on mobile device, click “Listen in browser” :

From rappler.com, by Lian Buan: “After delivering an hour-long opening statement, Solicitor General Jose Calida ceded the (Zoom) microphone to his assistant solicitors general (ASGs)… (who) took the questions from the justices instead of Calida.
“Both (assistant solgens) were grilled by the case lead, Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang… who asked about the anti-terror council’s powers to authorize warrantless arrest and detentions. When (asst solgen) Galandines said that warrantless arrests complied with regular rules, Carandang said, “That’s not what the law says.”
“Both the ASGs fumbled on some questions. At the close of the day’s oral arguments, Calida did not step in for his assistants.”
xxx xxx xxx

Here’s a page from oral argument litigation lore. Brief background: The U.S. Army and the Navy, after viewing the demonstration of the inventor Adams of a water-activated battery, rejected it for “unusually large claims that were not convincing.” The government later entered into contracts for the manufacture of said invention without asking permission from Adams. Was there infringement?
Was the device inventive? Here’s an account of what the lawyer did on oral arguments:
”Adams’ battery was water-activated, which set his device apart from the prior art, even though “water-activated” was not cited in the claims. In fact, this feature plays the central role in one of the great stories of patent litigation lore: Adams’s attorney rose before the Supreme Court, took a drink from his glass of water…”

In other words, ON ORAL ARGUMENTS, UMINOM SA KANYANG GLASS OF WATER YUNG ABUGADO…

“… and then dropped a tiny Adams battery into the glass…”

HINULOG NYA YUNG WATER-ACTIVATED BATTERY INVENTION NG CLIENT NYA SA GLASS OF WATER FROM WHERE HE DRANK.

“The inventive battery immediately lit a tiny light…”

NAGKAILAW SA LOOB NG TUBIG!

“… that continued to burn THROUGHOUT THE ORAL ARGUMENTS…”

All the justices’ eyes were glued to the tiny light burning inside the glass of water. Namilog ang mga mata ng mga justices — may ilaw sa loob ng tubig! Hindi namamatay yung ilaw.

“Some accounts suggest that the attorney knew he had won the case when the Justices kept their eyes on the tiny burning light throughout the remainder of the argument.”

Ganern.