|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
What could be appealed at the Federal Circuit? The jury ruled the patents not
infringed.
Copyrights issues will be appealed at the 9th circuit, isn't it?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 06:41 PM EDT |
Please write the comments so they can be understood. Just referring to someone
as "he" without context is very confusing. I had to check if someone
other that PJ wrote the article or if mirrorslap (don't know mirrorslap's sex)
wrote what was quoted.
Florian Mueller is not some sort of great supernatural being. There is no reason
to act as if you are unworthy to even say his name. Acting like he isn't a
normal person makes it seem as if he is more important than he actually is. Of
course, that's what he wants people to think, though.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 10:56 PM EDT |
Wikipedia:
In most U.S. states, and in U.S. federal courts, parties before the
court are allowed one appeal as of right. This means that a party who is
unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that
outcome. The fact that the rules have a rule called "Appeal as of Right"
implies that you have the right of appeal. That doesn't mean they won't take one
look at it and say "Frivolous!", but you at least get that.
What is
not automatic is an En Banc Determination,
which means more than a three judge panel or consideration by the US Supreme
Court (not sure about the right to an aural presentation).
As a practical
matter, any appeal of this one is going to get very serious consideration and
very possibly (IMO & IANAL) an En Banc consideration if it's requested. Judge Alsup
said:No court of appeals has addressed the copyrightability of
APIs, much less their structure, sequence and organization. Nor has any district
court. In other words, he was creating new law there. He was setting
precedent that other judges will be expected to follow. That deserves someone
looking over his shoulder. He expects it:...the actual facts, as
found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court
of appeals. He clearly expected that the decision was going to be
gone over with a fine tooth comb, so he tried to limit the chances that there
would be a problem if that happened.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not precedential - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
It does not really matter all that much whether the federal circuit is
patent-friendly or not. The patent case has been ripped to shreds quite
carefully. Especially if you are patent-friendly, you don't want a
factually defective case to get more exposure than it already
did.
It would be rather ridiculous to claim that the jury did a sub-par
job.
I don't see much hope for consideration in appeal except for the
copyright angle of the case. The structure, sequence, organisation
argument is rather novel. Whether or not it is novel because it is so
ridiculous nobody else dared bringing it so far does not matter: the ruling
establishes new ground and thus is worthy of reexamination/verification.
I
don't consider it likely that this will change the result either, but
nevertheless I expect that to be the angle that the appeals court will
spend most of its effort on. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|