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
The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj | 484 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Who is sj and when did he recommend the way the trial should go? ...nt
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 04:29 AM EDT
.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT
Of course there is room for dissent.

Thing is though, if you're going to argue about something then be prepared to provide some sort of evidence and logic.

Many people that are dissenting seem to be following Hogan's law. This is where someone seemingly creates their own rules and then applies those rules only partially and rather illogically.

To illustrate my point, Velvin Hogan thinks that the prior art is irrelevant because

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable.
and then doesn't follow his own thinking to it's logical conclusion that Samsung's software doesn't infringe because it can't be placed on the Apple processor.

So, what do you think is wrong with the articles and/or comments expressed on this blog and what evidence and logical arguments do you have to refute them?

j

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 06:14 AM EDT
You are ignorant if you think you can sway intelligent prejudice against
ignorant decisions with outrageously false accusations of "bias" or
"yelling bloody murder."

Your own biases are showing, and they have damned you into raging like a maniac
with delusions of persecution.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT
If you can bring intelligent, factual dissent please do. But
the post you just wrote brings neither.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The poor table....
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
A whole lotta trolls who can't find any real argument in the facts or the law
are pounding on the table...

If they start on the chairs, Ballmer is going to find his supply running short.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:17 PM EDT
hahahaha

Since it gets you so disturbed, you should
probably stop reading Groklaw.

[ 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 )