|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:11 AM EDT |
| Nobody involved is paying him? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Florian coverage - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
He'll probably put out an article saying how the judge got it totally wrong and
how it's absolutely certain it will be overturned on appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:06 AM EDT |
This is a pure and simple breach of contract case, no patents involved. Florian
is a self proclaimed "patent expert". He would be way outside his own
proclaimed area of expertise if he were to make predictions about US contract
law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
Florian's vision appears to suffer from being confined to his own
perspective:
I don't mean to condemn Samsung's conduct too much,
but it simply shouldn't have done this. Judge Koh told Mr. Quinn that he's
preserved the record for a possible appeal. Samsung and it lawyers are obviously
afraid of an outcome that exposes Samsung as a copycat, even if such a finding
may or may not be reversed on appeal more than a year later. And they thought
that drawings according to which Samsung was working on iPhone-like designs well
ahead of the launch of the iPhone are a silver bullet that can help dissuade the
jury from a finding of willful infringement. But Judge Koh had her reasons to
exclude that material, and if Samsung doesn't agree with her reasoning, it needs
to take this case to the appeals court, which will inevitably happen
anyway.
FOSS Patents, Thursday, August 2, 2012, 'Apple wants
ruling in favor of its design patent claims due to Samsung's alleged
misconduct', last paragraph.
If I were Apple, this wouldn't entice me to
hire Mr. Mueller. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
