|
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
I think his problem with getting it wrong about what the judge's order would
say is that he was trying to beat everyone else to publication. To do that he
has to write his story before the events actually happen, which presents a
problem if you've a less-than-stellar record for predicting outcomes. And in
this day and age you can't correct your story after publication, because
somebody's already saved a copy and will be happy to republish it if you
try to claim you didn't write that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
Hint in title helps
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
sew that thread
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
PYO
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
Comes comes here
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:15 AM EDT |
Florian is campaigning very hard to be on the apple payroll if
he is not already on it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
"Judge Koh said something to the effect that surely the plaintiff, Apple,
knows better than the defendant when litigation is about to commence. So why,
then, didn't it put a litigation hold? [...] Judge Koh seemed focused
particularly about why Steve Jobs wasn't on litigation hold and the company's
policy of automatic notices when your email box gets full."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_hold
"A legal hold is a process which an organization uses to preserve all forms
of relevant information when litigation is reasonably anticipated."
As Apple started this spectacle of course they would know when to start
preserving relevant material.
That Samsung actually had more, older material preserved made Apple look even
worse.
Brilliant catch by Koh!
That makes me wonder, is there a legal minimum time for how long larger
companies must preserve emails and other evidence relevant for cases like this?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
So the parties have agreed there will be no instruction on this matter.
I wonder if the jury notices that the email record is incomplete, and
if they'll have the gumption to say how this has affected their decision.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
> legalese isn't English. It has English words, but it's a specialty
language.
Why the crap, we as a society accept that laws are written in an
incomprehensible language? We are not taught in regular school how to understand
them. Laws must be written in a language people understand. Otherwise they are
just a tool for manipulation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
1834 - NOTICE by Apple Inc. APPLE'S REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO JURY REGARDING USE
OF INTERNET ON DEVICES IN EVIDENCE DURING DELIBERATIONS:
This is
important because many of the examples of utility patent infringement
provided
by Apple were demonstrated on web pages viewed in the Web Browser
application.
So, what this seems to say is that the utility
patents in question are infringed when a browser on a mobile computing device is
used to browse certain web pages.
Wikipedia gave me this on 'utility
patent':Some other types of intellectual property rights are also
referred to as patents in some jurisdictions: industrial design rights are
called design patents in the US, plant breeders' rights are sometimes called
plant patents, and utility models and Gebrauchsmuster are sometimes called petty
patents or innovation patents. The additional qualification utility patent is
sometimes used (primarily in the US) to distinguish the primary meaning from
these other types of patents.
So, it seems to be about the design
patents and trade dress issues that we have already seen in this case. That
raises so many questions. For instance, would Firefox accessing the web pages on
an Apple notebook via a wifi hotspot infringe because it was not an Apple
browser or an Apple web-site?
The attachment, Exhibit 1, seems to be
instructions on how to access the internet using a browser and the court's wifi
service, plus warnings about accepting any software upgrade offers. Actually, I
don't have nay problem with that. It all seems very reasonable. In fact, I am
not sure that this isn't incitement to the jury to research the case, on-line,
which I feel is not at all appropriate.
It does highlight the question
of what Apple design patent can be infringed in any way by browsing the
interweb.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT |
and now it has come back to bite Apple
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
I get the impression that this has been something of a learning experience for
Judge Koh, and we'll soon see her siding with Justices Posner and Alsup in her
views on patent litigation.
Also, between this case and Oracle v. Google, I think everybody will be taking
away the costs involved as an object lesson, and, sadly, use that as leverage to
encourage settlements, with the corresponding reductions in patent
invalidation.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
The second page has everything from 1754 onward. Everything before the last
quarter-millenium remains on the first page. I guess this suit was started long
ago in England and was carried across on the Mayflower. It'll finish any
century now. Makes me feel old that I can remember the beginning. And the SCO
tribulations have been going on even longer!
John Macdonald
:-) (An explicit smiley, in case there is a humour-impaired reader who thinks
this might be a serious post. Even SCO vs the world hasn't been going on for
more than 2.5 centuries.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|