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
truth must cost you too much ... | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
act against what court order???
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:52 PM EDT
I think you missed the question.

Ah, there was no court order. That's because the constitution of the U.S. frowns
on prior restraint of free speech.

And yes, if I tell the truth about you in public, you might not like it a bit.
That doesn't give you any rights--except to take all the umbrage you can carry.
Tough. Get over it.

Apple's name is mud. And few companies recover from that. Remember Sony? Sort of
like the Apple of the last generation, except with more products and better
engineering. Look at them now....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

WHAT private documents?
Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT
As far as I am aware, Samsung did NOT release ANY documents.

They merely pointed out to the journalists where to find those documents, in
full public view, in the court record.

Oh - and such pointing was in RESPONSE to journalist questions, not proactive.

My oh my, the FUDsters (AC's I notice :-) seem to be out in force today!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

truth must cost you too much ...
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT
The truth must cost you too much, otherwise why would
you be so economical with your use of it?

If what you claim were true, why did the Judge rule
against the sanctions that Apple called for?

Also you STILL have not identified the court order that
you claim Samsungs lawyer violated.

But don't worry about me ... I won't hold my breath waiting.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

private internal Apple documents?????
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT
These "private internal Apple documents" that you refer to were
already public information,in that they were filed as parts of, or exhibits to,
various motions related to this case, and they were not filed under seal, so
they were already public information and some news sources had already published
them, so they were no longer "private internal Apple documents".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here's my favorite part
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
Samsung abused its discovery privileges

Um, discovery is right, not a privilege.

by ... trying to confuse and stir up the public

How dastardly. Confusing people with facts is a dirty trick indeed.

by publishing those documents, and their favorite (and unopposed) interpretation of them.

And Apple has been soo quiet. I guess they must have pulled the plug on their publicity machine. (not)

[ 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 )