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
This is not about FOSS | 481 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Troll warning
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:27 AM EDT
I said Troll and I mean Troll - I hope others do what we are supposed to do
which is ignore trolls.

~

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is not about FOSS
Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 06:14 AM EDT
The iPhone is no doubt an extremely well designed iconic product. But the fact
is that many other companies were moving in exactly the same direction, so much
so that it is hard to tell that Apple has the rights to protect its trade dress
to the extent that the (current) result of this case appears to suggest.

There is no doubt that Samsung and just about every other company were looking
at each others designs to see what was good and bad about them, and from such
comparisons were making changes to their designs to better the competition.

A Samsung phone is in no way a slavish copy of an iPhone, which is what the
trade dress standard should require in order to demonstrate possible confusion.

Quite honestly a sensible jury would have tried to cobble a decision together
that gave a small (<100M) result to one side or the other, or tried to sort
out a draw. There is no way a verdict of this magnitude is going to stand or be
allowed to stand, whereas a smaller verdict towards one side or another may have
prompted both sides to settle.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is not about FOSS
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT
Except that in other countries Apple has lost exactly the same case. There is no
slavish copying, just a jury that decided to ignore all the evidence and give
the home team a big win.

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ 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 )