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
Not injunctions -- damages | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Isn't it obvious...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:59 AM EDT
I like the alternative where everybody wins.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

MAD
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT
Hey, if Apple aqnt's to go MAD, let's oblige them.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not injunctions -- damages
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT
I see a simple symmetry here. Samsung used Apples patents, and will need to pay
ALL of its profits for the infringing products to Apple.

Likewise, Apple has used Samsung's patents without any payment, and should be
held to the same standard...

Apple owes Samsung ALL of its profits on the iPhones, and iPads that infringed
on Samsung's patents.

There, that fixed it. Apple will get a pyrrhic victory that destroys the
company.

Now, how does one take a WIN to the appeals court?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

DRAM tax
Authored by: ailuromancy on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT

European DRAM manufacturers complained "We are utterly incapable of competing with the outside world", so the European parliament lept in to the rescue with the 30% import tax on DRAM. This instantly caused:

  • European DRAM manufactureres to become world leaders in the industry.
  • European DRAM manufacturers to become more efficient.
  • Every other type of business in the EU to become a little less competitive because they had to pay the DRAM tax.
  • All old and broken DRAM to be worth 15% of the value of the latest high speed high capacity chips. (You could avoid the tax by claiming you were exchanging defective parts. Anything that looked vaguely like a SIMM would do.)

Judge Koh seems to understand the value to the US of creating a monopoly supplier just as well as the European Parliament. Enjoy Microsoft ][.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It is not obvious - false equivalency
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
perhaps you are the author of this little gem
Rewriting History Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT

I keep tripping over this phrase, here on GL, and all over the tech press, usually referring to Apple's attempts to deny the admission of Samsung's historic designs. Now history is what I saw happening, and what you saw happening may well be different, even of the same event, because you saw it from a different angle with a different set of preconceptions. History is always being rewritten. There are libraries full of history books written by people who saw or heard things differently. Then with the passage of time more people will re-interpret that history in the light of a new set of moral principles. I hope the jury were taught enough of this basic philosophy to see that both parties are right, and both are wrong, and neither deserve a penny. The unfortunate part is that the court system works in a mysterious way that allows the parties to ration the quantity and quality of history that the jury is allowed to consider.
that's from the topic Samsung 's Motion to Strike Apple's "Purported Recommendation" for Sanctions, as text ~pj Updated 2Xs that was posted previous to this one.

Perhaps you are not the author, then please accept my apology - however the ideas expressed in your present comment and those expressed there appear to come from the same pottery shop.

my response to this was late so may have been missed by many so here it is:
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 03:53 AM EDT

no doubt you view my little comment on this issue as sophomoric and obtuse. but if you want to get philosophical about it, it could be viewed that the judiciary's purpose is to curb chaos. To curb this chaos it is not necessary to school the participants in relativistic theory that the perception of events is dependent on the observers cultural bias or that the perception of the same event(s) may be honestly remembered differently by different people. These could-be anomalies are to be resolved in the judicial setting as a matter of course. But what I really object to is the conclusion by the purveyor of the relativistic vision of history is this...
I hope the jury were taught enough of this basic philosophy to see that both parties are right, and both are wrong, and neither deserve a penny
In the real world sometimes there really is a bully beating up on some other kid.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Actually Samsung would win
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT
If Apple was banned from selling the iPhone and iPad, and Samsung was banned
from selling all of the models alleged to infringe in this law suit, Apple would
have no phones or tablets to sell, while Samsung would still have many models to
sell.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )