decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Spoliation is complex | 189 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT
Please type error->correction or s/error/correction/ in the Title bar when
you post your correction, to make it easy to scan to see which errors have
already been noted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
Pick and sow

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 07:36 PM EDT
Pick of the crop

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Documents
Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 07:36 PM EDT
Keep 'em coming

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spoliation is complex
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 08:15 PM EDT
PJ, you write that law is complex, etc.

Spoliation is particularly complex. It drives thoughtful lawyers nuts.

It's such a judgment call. There really aren't good bright-line rules.
In their decisions, judges comment all the time on the imprecision
of constructive knowledge of when a lawsuit might occur.

In a way I hope this issue gets pushed hard here, if only for the
possibility of giving some more clarity to this almost impossible
area of the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Damaging appearance of impartiality
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT
Most of us have seen it in sports: ref makes a call against one team and feels
obligated to make the next call against the other team, to give the appearance
of impartiality. It happens so often, most teams can see it coming and prepare
for it. It's a kind of false equivalence. With a ruling already against Apple,
it was Samsung's turn in the penalty box, regardless of merit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why would anyone believe Florian any more?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT
If you only read Florian during the Google-Oracle trial, you were expecting
Oracle to win. Instead, Oracle lost, big time. So, why would anyone believe him
now?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Samsung now has a credibility problem with the jury."
Authored by: mcinsand on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 09:07 PM EDT
Well... Flo's pointing at someone else's 'credibility problems' could be part of
saying what he's paid to say. Then again, after watching him for the past few
years, it looks like he's trying to create a monopoly of his own. When it comes
to credibility problems, Flo is working on cornering the market!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic? Possible prier art on iPad design?
Authored by: Mikkel on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 10:03 PM EDT
Has any body taken a look at the Fujitsu Stylistic 1000 as possible prier art?
The design is table in the form of a rectangle with no buttons on the face.
There are places on the screen that can be activated by the styles. The screen
is not exactly a tough screen - it responds to a magnetic styles in the manner
of graphics tablets of the same era. It ran Windows 95 with tablet extensions.
You could get a color screen, or two types of monochrome screens.

It is considerable thicker and heavier then the iPad, but it uses several
generations older technology. It has a 80486 processor and a maximum of 24M of
RAM.

One nice feature of the tablet was that you could use the styles through the
optional protective case. Great for delivery drivers. For its day, it was a
full-featured tablet. It used a PCMCIA hard drive or memory card as its hard
drive. It also had two PCMCIA slots for add-on cards...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Request to disregard FOSSPatents completely
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 12:15 AM EDT
Hi PJ,

Great job on covering the Samsung Vs Apple trial - provides some much needed
perspective, plainly lacking in the rest of the media.

Would request that you disregard FOSSPatents as much as possible though - it
detracts from the quality of the rest of the material and analysis of the key
issues.

In this case, you've spent a huge amount of time and words into what's
essentially a not so relevant side-channel (discovery, retention, etc.) which I

would rather you spent on the core issues - patents, design patents, damages,
volume of damages. Perhaps one post at the end of the trial to cover the bias of

FOSSPatents might be ok.

Anyway, very happy to see you cover this, and would love to see much more!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apples $24 royalty
Authored by: maroberts on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT
As I understand things, Apple is claiming that it only owes 0.5c royalty as the
Broadcom/Qualcom chip is the smallest unit that implements the patent, and the
cost of that chip is small.

Why doesn't Samsung similarly argue that the pressing of the outer case costs
peanuts, and therefore it only owes a trivial amount over the look and feel of
the case? :_)

[ Reply to This | # ]

rawtherapee for RAW photos
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
I didn't know of this until today, but RAWTHERAPEE (http://rawtherapee.com) is
an excellent alternative to rawstudio (http://www.rawstudio.org) for editing raw
images.

Under the moniker "Freedom for Free" at
http://rawtherapee.com/blog/features we can read:

"RawTherapee is free and open source software, meaning you can use it free
of charge, wherever you like on whatever hardware you like, as long as you abide
by the copyleft GPLv3 license. Download the source code, modify it, feel free to
do what comes to mind. We believe in open software. RT is cross-platform: Linux,
Mac, or Windows, be it 32-bit or 64-bit - you pick, we provide. International:
it is available in 25 languages!"

Yes, it is available by default in Debian too!


Nice gift to yourself for editing your vacation photos!


/IMANAL_TOO (just didn't login)

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK court: Apple to publicly tell the world that Samsung did not copy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
This may have been covered but how does the UK court's ruling affect this case.
I mean according to the UK court Apple has to publically admit Samsung did NOT
in fact copy, how then can bring buit in the US for copying???

Wouldn't that basically violate the UK court's order? i.e. We admit they didn't
copy, but are still going to sue for copying. How can you say/admit they didn't
copy then sue them for copying???

-Ish

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meetings with Apple...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT
my takeaway of this order is that whenever a company has a
business meeting with Apple it needs to issue litigation hold
notices because it is likely that Apple will sue you... ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Email is, or should be, forever.
Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
My company has recently started an automated email shredding system that sucks
all your email more than one year old out of your Outlook Inbox etc and discards
it unless you have used some impenetrable tool to mark it as a business record.

This is -incredibly- short-sighted.

I understand the purpose, that being to prevent Ye Olde Microsoft Email
Debacle™, where the smoking guns are left lying hither and yon to be found
during discovery. This is, however, backwards from how it should be; where no
guns are fired in the first place.

But this isn't a complaint about that directly.

Thing is, Email is forever. To "circumvent" this shredding system that
cost millions all you have to do is drag the email out of the email program onto
the desktop, or into another document format like word, or a printer, etc. The
system is, at its core, a false confidence.

But this isn't really a complaint about -that- either.

First, smart litigants against companies who have discarded email should be
getting subpoena for the hard disks of the senders and any gmail/hotmail/private
mail systems used by any party. If the work email is shredded then anybody with
"a perl harbor file" will have forwarded stuff to one of those sorts
of places.

Second, any company that shreds its old email is opening itself up to false
clams from other parties because -they- have "a copy of some email"
that you can no longer refute.

How easy then to take an email I got from my supervisor one-year-minus-one-day
ago, send it to myself, edit it, and print it as text. This email will have
"valid" message IDs and appear genuine, and the fact that it claims my
bosses boss told me to reroute funds (or whatever) (and coincidentally over my
strenuous objections) gets things a little murky.

These companies that are doing all this "old email management" are
laboring under the misguided belief that email is like paper. But it never goes
away and your only evidence against it is to have your copies too.

As someone who has to think about this stuff for a living, I cannot believe that
-anyone- in a position of corporate responsibility would ever be well served by
an email non-retention policy.

Being able to assert "no such message ID ever passed through our email
system, and I know this because we have -all- the email" would be a very
strong defense. Similarly "I have message ID xxxxxx right here, and that
isn't what it says" or "message yyyyyyy was part of a larger email
series titled 'ridiculous claims that I just got on customer support' and isn't
a company policy" would be useful in many cases too.

Plus when you shred your email you look like a crook who isn't willing or able
to stand behind your words.

Plus the number of times I have needed to go back three years fish out some
vague detail of an old conversation, and then been denied by the shredder, are
non-trivial.

The only reason to discard old email is if you -know- you are doing things there
you don't want a record of.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )