|
|
| There Will Be No Adverse Inference Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung After All ~pj |
 |
|
Monday, August 20 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT
|
This is a parable with a lesson to be learned. I'll tell you the lesson, and then I'll tell you all that happened today on the topic of adverse inference jury instructions in the Apple v. Samsung trial. The bottom line is, after a hearing today, there won't be any. The earlier adverse inference instruction that the magistrate ordered [PDF] against Samsung has been dropped. And it was Apple that dropped it, when the judge gave them a choice to drop it or get an equal wording against Apple. And the lesson is, just because litigators know how to be super-aggressive, it doesn't always pay to act that way. We had a reporter there today in the courtroom, and here's how it all played out.
First, we had the paperwork.
The judge presiding over the case, the Hon. Lucy Koh, filed her final version of proposed jury instructions [PDF], and her decision was, subject to argument at the hearing, that there should be identical adverse inference jury instructions regarding both Apple and Samsung's failures to preserve evidence. However, at the a hearing set for this [PDF], the parties got to argue about it some more. Apple already did on paper. Here's Apple's filing. We had a reporter there today, attending the hearing, and he just wrote to me that there the judge thought it wouldn't be fair to single out Samsung alone, because Steve Jobs' emails were never held for litigation, for example, and neither side saved email from the date the magistrate thought was the right date. So when she said that, that there would be no adverse inference instruction against Samsung without one against Apple, too, Judge Koh told the parties if they preferred, she offered to drop both, and Apple said, OK to that.
The judge's proposed version, with much milder language than the magistrate judge's, read like this:
[Apple/Samsung Electronics Company] has failed to preserve evidence for [Samsung's/Apple’s] use in this litigation after [Apple's/Samsung Electronics Company’s] duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide. Apple didn't like that at all. From our reporter, bruno:
*Adverse Inference*
There was a lot of back and forth about email spoliation. This revolved
around a few points:
First of all, when they established the date by which evidence needed
preservation, it became a concern of having a double standard on when
Samsung and Apple should have started preserving evidence and putting people
on litigation hold. For example, they didn't put Steve Jobs on litigation hold
until much later than other people. Judge Koh said something to the effect that surely the plaintiff, Apple,
knows better than the defendant when litigation is about to commence. So why, then, didn't it put a litigation hold?
Apple seemed to present more evidence of spoliation on Samsung's part.
Samsung however made the argument that they had similar evidence of the same
on Apple's part. After arguments by Apple's lawyer, in the end, Judge Koh seemed focused particularly about
why Steve Jobs wasn't on litigation hold and the company's policy of automatic
notices when your email box gets full.
In the final analysis, Judge Koh said that she was going to make a similar
adverse inference on both sides but offered not to do it on either.
The Apple lawyer consented to that. So that's the end of that.
I don't think either of them failed in any duty, personally. I never did, and this outcome seems fair. The parties just picked a different point in time than the magistrate judge picked, but Apple insisted on pursuing an adverse inference instruction against Samsung, got it, and then that inspired Samsung to seek an equal instruction, and now it has come back to bite Apple. None of this comes as a surprise to me, since the facts were so clear in Samsung's motion asking for an equal adverse inference jury instruction against Apple, unless the one against it were dropped. Some things are just obvious. Like I say, sometimes it's better not to be as aggressive as you know how to be.
Picking the date to start preserving evidence for trial is a sticky wicket, frankly. You do the best you can, and the trigger is supposed to be when you believe litigation will occur, and here Samsung actually started preserving evidence long, long before Apple did, almost a year before Apple did, so it's only fair, really, that the judge sanction, mildly, both, if she wanted to sanction either. And why sanction either in a fact pattern like this?
That means this is another failed prediction for FOSSPatents. Actually, three of them. First
Florian Mueller wrote,1 when the magistrate issued the sanction against Samsung alone, that as a result Samsung now would have a credibility problem with the jury, which could be serious for Samsung. I corrected his misunderstanding of what was happening in this article, where you will find many more details. Mueller also called Samsung's subsequent motion for an equal adverse inference instruction "ridiculous", a motion "without merit", and one he predicted the judge would deny.2 That was wildly wrong, as you can see from the result.
Today he wrote that there would be equal adverse inference instructions against both Apple and Samsung, calling it a "surprising" development, but opined that Apple "may very well" win on appeal on this point.3 He wrote too soon, probably thinking that the judge's proposed order was final, missing the detail that the judge's proposed jury instruction was subject to a conference today. You can't appeal what you agreed to, as Apple did today. Why keep pointing out his errors, you ask? Not for fun. Because it's not fun. It is, however, part of journalistic ethics to correct misinformation that get published. It's what journalism is for, to present the most accurate account that you can. And that sometimes means you have to correct what others have written. It's also part of Groklaw's mission to do antiFUD, and we have done that from day one.
That's the other lesson. If you are not sure about something having to do with a legal case, ask a *lawyer* or someone with some training in the field. That's what I do. Analysts don't go to law school, generally speaking, or have other related legal training or experience, and when it gets detailed and complex in a trial, they can miss the legal complexities, because legalese isn't English. It has English words, but it's a specialty language. In fact, it is the first thing they teach you when you go to paralegal school, how to figure out what the legalese is saying. And the rest you learn by experience, and if you don't have any of that, how can you be expected to predict with accuracy what will happen? Most lawyers I know don't predict outcomes anyway in jury trials. There are too many variables.
Here's the latest on the docket, just to show you what an extraordinary day it was for filings, most of which I haven't even begun to explain, but you can sum it up that the parties are arguing about what the jury can hear and see in closing statements tomorrow and what the rest of the jury instructions should say. Note that the tentative jury verdict form [PDF] is now posted, as well, though it could be altered still:
08/19/2012 - 1830 - Statement re 1824 Order Concerning Jury
Instruction on Equitable Estoppel by
Apple Inc.. (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1831 - TRIAL BRIEF Samsung's Response to Question re Jury
Instruction No. 23 by
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung
Electronics
Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis,
Victoria) (Filed
on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1832 -
TRIAL BRIEF APPLE'S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER
OF LAW by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered:
08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1833 -
RESPONSE (re 1820 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law - CORRECTED] )
Samsung's Opposition to Motion for Judgment As A Matter of Law filed
bySamsung
Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd.,
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on
8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1834 -
NOTICE by Apple Inc. APPLE'S REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO JURY REGARDING
USE OF
INTERNET ON DEVICES IN EVIDENCE DURING DELIBERATIONS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
1)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1835 -
ORDER Re: 1834 Apple's Request for Device Use Direction. Signed by Judge
Lucy H. Koh on 8/19/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2012)
(Entered:
08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1836 - NOTICE of Appearance by Marc J. Pernick (Pernick,
Marc) (Filed on 8/19/2012)
(Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1837 -
RESPONSE to re 1835 Order, 1834 Notice (Other) SAMSUNGS OPPOSITION TO
APPLES
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO JURY REGARDING USE OF INTERNET ON DEVICES IN
EVIDENCE
DURING DELIBERATIONS by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York
corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications
America,
LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1838 -
ORDER Regarding Tentative Final Jury Instructions (Part IV). Signed by
Judge
Lucy H. Koh on 8/19/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2012)
(Entered:
08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1839 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 08-13-12, before
Judge Lucy H. Koh. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Lee-Anne Shortridge, Telephone number
408-287-4580. Per
General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript
may be
viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased
through the
Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript
Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any
Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5
business days
from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
11/19/2012.
(las, ) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1840 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 08-14-12, before
Judge Lucy H. Koh. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Lee-Anne Shortridge, Telephone number
408-287-4580. Per
General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript
may be
viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased
through the
Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript
Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any
Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5
business days
from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
11/19/2012.
(las, ) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1841 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 08-15-12, before
Judge Lucy H. Koh. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Lee-Anne Shortridge, Telephone number
408-287-4580. Per
General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript
may be
viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased
through the
Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript
Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any
Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5
business days
from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
11/19/2012.
(las, ) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1842 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 08-16-12, before
Judge Lucy H. Koh. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Lee-Anne Shortridge, Telephone number
408-287-4580. Per
General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript
may be
viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased
through the
Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript
Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any
Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5
business days
from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
11/19/2012.
(las, ) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1843 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 08-17-12, before
Judge Lucy H. Koh. Court
Reporter/Transcriber Lee-Anne Shortridge, Telephone number
408-287-4580. Per
General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript
may be
viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased
through the
Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of
Transcript
Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any
Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5
business days
from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for
11/19/2012.
(las, ) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1844 -
ORDER Regarding Apple's Requested Jury Instruction on Internet Access of
Devices. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/19/2012. (lhklc2, COURT
STAFF) (Filed
on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1845 - Statement re 1838 Order STATEMENT OF INSTRUCTIONS
LIKELY TO BE SUBJECT OF
APPLE'S HIGH PRIORITY OBJECTIONS by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael)
(Filed on
8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1846 - OBJECTIONS to High Priority Objections to
Tentative Jury Instructions by
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung
Electronics
Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis,
Victoria) (Filed
on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1847 - ORDER Regarding Lodging Excluded Exhibits. Signed
by Judge Lucy H. Koh on
8/19/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered:
08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1848 -
ORDER Regarding Tentative Final Jury Instructions - Part V (Trade Dress
Damages and Adverse Inference Instructions). Signed by Judge Lucy H.
Koh on
8/19/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1849 -
ORDER Regarding Tentative Final Jury Instructions (Complete Set).
Signed by
Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/19/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2012)
(Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1850 - NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New
York corporation), Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
Samsung's Notice
of Lodging of Deposition Testimony (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit
J to
Samsung's Notice of Lodging Deposition Testimony)(Maroulis, Victoria)
(Filed on
8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/19/2012 - 1851 - ORDER Regarding Jury Instructions. Signed by Judge
Lucy H. Koh on 8/19/2012.
(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2012) (Entered: 08/19/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1852 - ORDER Regarding Admitted Exhibits List. Signed by
Judge Lucy H. Koh on
8/19/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012) (Entered:
08/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1853 -
TRIAL BRIEF Motion to Enforce Court Order and Correct the Admitted Exhibit
List by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.
Ltd., Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of
Diane C.
Hutnyan, # 2 Exhibit
A, # 3 Exhibit
B)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
(Entered: 08/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1854 - NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Notice of Manual Filing Re:
Exhibits C-V
to the Declaration of Diane C. Hutnyan in Support of Motion to Enforce and
Correct Admitted Exhibit List (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
(Entered: 08/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1856 -
Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012
OBJECTIONS to re [1814] Order APPLE'S HIGH PRIORITY OBJECTIONS TO TENTATIVE FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
1857 -
Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012
Statement re [1844] Order APPLE'S STATEMENT REGARDING UPDATES AND PATCHES THAT RELATE TO ATTEMPTS TO DESIGN AROUND THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1858 -
Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012
RESPONSE to re [1844] Order Samsung's Response To Order Re: Apple's Request For Direction To Jury Regarding Use Of Internet On Devices In Evidence During Deliberations by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1859 -
Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012
OBJECTIONS to Samsung's Objections To Tentative Final Jury Instructions by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1860
Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012
Declaration of Diane C. Hutnyan in Support of [1859] Objection, Samsung's Objections To Tentative Final Jury Instructions filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E)(Related document(s)[1859]) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1861 -
Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012
Statement re [1851] Order APPLE'S STATEMENT AND RESPONSE REGARDING INFORMATION FOR DAMAGES INSTRUCTIONS by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E, # (6) Exhibit F)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1862 -
Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012
RESPONSE to re [1851] Order SAMSUNGS RESPONSE TO ORDER REGARDING INFORMATION FOR DAMAGES INSTRUCTIONS by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1863 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
Statement re [1857] Statement, [1844] Order APPLE'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT REGARDING UPDATES AND PATCHES THAT RELATE TO ATTEMPTS TO DESIGN AROUND THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1864 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
ORDER Modifying Jury Instruction Hearing Time. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/20/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1865 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Docket Text: MOTION Instructing Samsung in advance of closing arguments that it may not argue based on excluded evidence or cross other boundaries in violation of pre-trial or trial rulings filed by Apple Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 8/21/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Lucy H. Koh. Responses due by 9/4/2012. Replies due by 9/11/2012. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1866 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
Brief re [1853] Trial Brief, Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Enforce Court Order & To Correct Admitted Exhibit List filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s)[1853]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1867 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
TRIAL BRIEF SAMSUNGS SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT REGARDING USE OF INTERNET ON DEVICES IN EVIDENCE DURING DELIBERATIONS by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1868 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
ORDER Further Modifying Jury Instruction Hearing Time. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/20/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1869 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
Exhibit List Corrected Joint Submission of Admitted Trial Exhibits by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1870 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
ORDER Re: Tentative Verdict Form. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/20/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1871 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
OBJECTIONS to Apples Objections To Samsungs Closing Demonstratives by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1872 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
OBJECTIONS to Samsung's Objections to Apple's Opening Slides by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1873 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
Statement Samsung's Proffer of Indefiniteness Argument During Closing by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1874 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
OBJECTIONS to Samsung's Responses Regarding Apple's Objections to Samsung's Opening Slides by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1875 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
RESPONSE to APPLE'S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO CLOSING DEMONSTRATIVES by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
08/20/2012 - 1876 -
Filed & Entered:
08/20/2012
RESPONSE (re [1865] MOTION Instructing Samsung in advance of closing arguments that it may not argue based on excluded evidence or cross other boundaries in violation of pre-trial or trial rulings ) Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion Regarding Samsung's Closing Argument filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
We have started a second page for the Apple v. Samsung Timeline, because it's gotten too long for a single page. You'll find everything from 1754 on there on Apple v. Samsung2, now on the menu list. We don't have all the documents, because it's too expensive. If there are any you particularly want, let me know, though.
____________
1 http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/samsung-faces-credibility-problem-with.html
1 http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/samsung-files-me-too-motion-adverse.html
3 http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/samsung-successfully-neutralizes.html
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
I think his problem with getting it wrong about what the judge's order would
say is that he was trying to beat everyone else to publication. To do that he
has to write his story before the events actually happen, which presents a
problem if you've a less-than-stellar record for predicting outcomes. And in
this day and age you can't correct your story after publication, because
somebody's already saved a copy and will be happy to republish it if you
try to claim you didn't write that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
Hint in title helps
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
sew that thread
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
PYO
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
Comes comes here
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:15 AM EDT |
Florian is campaigning very hard to be on the apple payroll if
he is not already on it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
"Judge Koh said something to the effect that surely the plaintiff, Apple,
knows better than the defendant when litigation is about to commence. So why,
then, didn't it put a litigation hold? [...] Judge Koh seemed focused
particularly about why Steve Jobs wasn't on litigation hold and the company's
policy of automatic notices when your email box gets full."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_hold
"A legal hold is a process which an organization uses to preserve all forms
of relevant information when litigation is reasonably anticipated."
As Apple started this spectacle of course they would know when to start
preserving relevant material.
That Samsung actually had more, older material preserved made Apple look even
worse.
Brilliant catch by Koh!
That makes me wonder, is there a legal minimum time for how long larger
companies must preserve emails and other evidence relevant for cases like this?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
So the parties have agreed there will be no instruction on this matter.
I wonder if the jury notices that the email record is incomplete, and
if they'll have the gumption to say how this has affected their decision.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
> legalese isn't English. It has English words, but it's a specialty
language.
Why the crap, we as a society accept that laws are written in an
incomprehensible language? We are not taught in regular school how to understand
them. Laws must be written in a language people understand. Otherwise they are
just a tool for manipulation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
1834 - NOTICE by Apple Inc. APPLE'S REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO JURY REGARDING USE
OF INTERNET ON DEVICES IN EVIDENCE DURING DELIBERATIONS:
This is
important because many of the examples of utility patent infringement
provided
by Apple were demonstrated on web pages viewed in the Web Browser
application.
So, what this seems to say is that the utility
patents in question are infringed when a browser on a mobile computing device is
used to browse certain web pages.
Wikipedia gave me this on 'utility
patent':Some other types of intellectual property rights are also
referred to as patents in some jurisdictions: industrial design rights are
called design patents in the US, plant breeders' rights are sometimes called
plant patents, and utility models and Gebrauchsmuster are sometimes called petty
patents or innovation patents. The additional qualification utility patent is
sometimes used (primarily in the US) to distinguish the primary meaning from
these other types of patents.
So, it seems to be about the design
patents and trade dress issues that we have already seen in this case. That
raises so many questions. For instance, would Firefox accessing the web pages on
an Apple notebook via a wifi hotspot infringe because it was not an Apple
browser or an Apple web-site?
The attachment, Exhibit 1, seems to be
instructions on how to access the internet using a browser and the court's wifi
service, plus warnings about accepting any software upgrade offers. Actually, I
don't have nay problem with that. It all seems very reasonable. In fact, I am
not sure that this isn't incitement to the jury to research the case, on-line,
which I feel is not at all appropriate.
It does highlight the question
of what Apple design patent can be infringed in any way by browsing the
interweb.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT |
and now it has come back to bite Apple
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
I get the impression that this has been something of a learning experience for
Judge Koh, and we'll soon see her siding with Justices Posner and Alsup in her
views on patent litigation.
Also, between this case and Oracle v. Google, I think everybody will be taking
away the costs involved as an object lesson, and, sadly, use that as leverage to
encourage settlements, with the corresponding reductions in patent
invalidation.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
The second page has everything from 1754 onward. Everything before the last
quarter-millenium remains on the first page. I guess this suit was started long
ago in England and was carried across on the Mayflower. It'll finish any
century now. Makes me feel old that I can remember the beginning. And the SCO
tribulations have been going on even longer!
John Macdonald
:-) (An explicit smiley, in case there is a humour-impaired reader who thinks
this might be a serious post. Even SCO vs the world hasn't been going on for
more than 2.5 centuries.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
