Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

It is not obvious - false equivalency | 311 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

It is not obvious - false equivalency

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 06:26 PM EDT

I'm not the OP of this thread, but I wrote Rewriting History.
I agree with you that
---
In the real world sometimes there really is a bully beating up on some
other kid.
---

In the instant case I do not believe there is any bully or little kid.
This case is about two giants arguing over whose gnat has bitten each.
Both of them are not the only companies to conduct take-apart of their
competitor's products. Both of them hire stooges to stake out the pizza
and wine bars of Palo Alto and Seocho-gu looking for strange new hardware.
Both of them have such tight security and secrecy around their R&D
facilities that simultaneous invention is highly probable.

The law is constructed to easily deal with the case of the bully and
the little kid. But Samsung and Apple are equals, who both blinked at
the same time, thus each did not see the other blink, and now they
are fighting over that mistake.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It is not obvious - false equivalency - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- It is not obvious - false equivalency - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 02:14 AM EDT
  - another dubious assertion - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT
It is not obvious - false equivalency - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:42 PM EDT
That's ridculous! - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 11:51 PM EDT

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 )