Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated | 484 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:27 PM EDT

There is a reason why almost no lawyer worth his salt will allow another lawyer
to make it through jury selection. Too much opportunity for the default
"expert" hijacking the deliberations and doing whatever he pleases.

Here, it looks like the foreman designated himself "expert" in
patents, decided to strike a blow for all patent holders, and reinterpret IP law
to strike terror in the hearts of all perceived infringers. Especially telling
is that he (a) now is changing his story yet even digging himself a deeper hole
and (b) came up with his new legal standard on prior art only when he saw Apple
was going to lose.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated - Authored by: eric76 on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT

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 )