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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Corrections please | 122 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Florian's problem
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 | # ]

Corrections please
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT
Hint in title helps

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT
sew that thread

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT
PYO

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ComesDocuments
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT
Comes comes here

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There Will Be No Adverse Inference Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung After All ~pj
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 | # ]

Minimum time for preservation?
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 | # ]

Apple didn't like it? I don't like it!
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 | # ]

legalese лангуаге
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 | # ]

I shouldn't have read that!
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 | # ]

PJ - pun intended?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT
and now it has come back to bite Apple

[ Reply to This | # ]

A couple of takeaways I see from this case
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 | # ]

splitting Apple vs Samsung into two pages
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 | # ]

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 )