|
| Authored by: al_dunsmuir on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
The Groklaw standard threads must be non-anonymous, otherwise the thread is
filtered for those who chose to follow only non-anonymous posts.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
"It's on to the damages phase after closing statements" (is jury
ruling on patents before that)?
Is the jury going to deliberate about patents, before phase 3, or combine patent
ruling with damages?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Thanks. Much like the jury, your faithful reporter today has clearly lost track
of time :)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
Why use the word nazis in this context? Maybe study some history. Maybe you'll
be offended too.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
Dr. Mitchell: There is a reputing pattern of four
instructions.
This should probably say "a repeating pattern
of four instructions."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
Was reporting missed on Law of Agency or Acquiescence?
Did the defense even use this?
Wouldn't it matter at all?
Or did they rely on their patent defense for an all out win?
Driving a car, with IP in it, car maker sells it to user,
and even the car maker is not viewed by IP holder as
infriging, and this goes on for years... how can IP owner
come out and get rewarded for something that they allowed to
happen? In this case, like the copyright phase, Sun allowed
Google to do what they did and even applauded their
activity. So, where is this in the defense of the patent
phase? Or, will it be used in closing by Google?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
