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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Protective Order or Agreement? | 146 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How does the judge keep up with all of that!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
I understand he probably has assistants and such, but does he not have to
understand each well enoough to rule on them? That is just insane.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Protective Order or Agreement?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
IBM is contending the Protective Order is binding on Reuters,

Reuters claims it is not, because they never signed it. That would make it a
Protective Agreement.

But isn't a Protective Order an Order issued by the Court and if so shouldn't
everyone be bound by it?

Reuters would still be free to oppose any motions or move that exhibits be
unsealed. In fact if Reuters doesn't have access to sealed material how can it
the make a case they it should be unsealed?

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
Please type a summary error->correction or s/error/correction in the Title
box when you post your comment

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM sending the agreement to Reuters: A way to win by losing??? Sly fox?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
This is a wild speculation!

That is, IBM doesn't want to get all those other companies mad at it, but knows
that if its agreement (and others, especially involving companies in Redmond
with strongly felt reputations) get disclosed, that is in its best long-term
interest.

So it plays along with the "seal my agreement" motions, creating
plausible deniablility of its true intentions, but screws up. Now, the cat has
a *very* good chance of getting out of the bag.

Poke a few holes, or add supports, anyone? (don't forget to grin when you do)
(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Secret agreements
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT
All these secret agreements are disgusting. Too many secrets, and too often
they are used to hide corporate criminal activity.

Why should companies have privacy when individual citizens are not allowed any?
No agreement should be enforceable unless it is also public.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enough Already!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
1450 - MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply

Any side bets on this being tossed? Lucy Koh sounds like she had
(past tense...) a tighter grip of the whip than Dale Kimball.

[ Reply to This | # ]

providence or shortsightedness
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT
Responding to the sidebar.
I don't recall the Singer.
I am however familiar with the song (Romney's).

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

“Apple comes out with really, really nice stuff,”
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT

Prospective juror's reply to Samsung lawyer when asked why she contemplated purchase of an iPad. Ina Fried's summary says it too, "Well, you asked…"

allthingsd

Rightly or wrongly, the meme is out there. Maybe it's the marketing, maybe Apple do just make better stuff seen thru the eyes of a juror. Maybe Apple is seen as worthy of support because it's an American company. Oh we know their products are all made in China, but do J. Random jurors?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reuters Wants to Publish Unredacted IBM-Samsung Patent License Agreement (Apple v. Samsung); IBM Moves to Block ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
I'm not often enthusiastic about my former employer (Thomson Reuters), but... GO
TR!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 09:51 PM EDT
Please read the important stuff at the bottom of the Post a comment page. Make
links clickable, if you can. On-topic posts will be ignored.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wait...what?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 11:01 PM EDT
So, I don't understand something fundamental here...

This is Apple v. Samsung. It's a patent-and-trademark case
between Apple and Samsung.

I get that there's some request for documents that are
agreements with third parties required for discovery
(Samsung's licensing agreement with IBM, Microsoft, etc.)
And why those companies, who are NOT (AFAIK) parties to the
litigation themselves, might have to produce documents.

But how the holy heck did Reuters become a party to the
litigation? Why does IBM, when producing documentation,
need to be served with a copy of IBM's agreement (which as I
understand it was produced in discovery under subpoena from
either Apple or Samsung)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barroom logic
Authored by: Doghouse on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 03:35 AM EDT
Indeed, it would be passing strange if a party which intervened for the sole purpose of opposing sealing could be bound to a protective order whose sole purpose was to make it easier to seal documents.

I've studied that rather twisted sentence for some time, and as far as I can make out it boils down to: "We only intervened because we want the opposite of what the court ordered, so we shouldn't be bound by the court's order."

The word for that is specious. "Officer, you can't give me a ticket. I'm only speeding to get to the debate against speed limits!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Which are the third party appearances?
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 04:18 AM EDT
From

http://allthingsd.com/20120730/as-apple-and-samsung-head-to-court-heres-a-handy-
cheat-sheet/

"Nearly 80 attorneys had filed an appearance with the court as of Friday.
Most represent Apple or Samsung, but a number represent third parties, including
many tech companies seeking to keep their contracts secret, as well as Reuters,
which is fighting those requests."

80 attorneys. That sounds like a crowded court room.

But, which are all the third party appearances? Is there a list or an overview
somewhere?





---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks thread
Authored by: The Cornishman on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 06:10 AM EDT

A place to discuss the newspicks from the sidebar. Please include a link to the story you are discussing, to maintain context when the newspick has scrolled off.

Aside: c'mon, guys! It used to be a matter of pride to get the canonical threads set up soon after PJ put up a new post. This time, three different people have done Corrections, Off Topic and Newspicks, and it's posting +13h!.

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reuters Wants to Publish Unredacted IBM-Samsung Patent License Agreement (Apple v. Samsung); IBM Moves to Block ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 07:49 AM EDT
That's the problem with our legal system. Unless you have millions to spend, you
don't have any chance. Doesn't leave much room for the small startup, they are
easily litigated into extinction.

[ 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 )