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
$2.6 million? | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Compensation to Samsung for Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 02:32 AM EDT
I've never heard of anyone getting anything just because a ban was lifted.
Samsung might have to sue to get anything for that.

Course, they plan to sue apple if they sell an lte phone.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

$2.6 million?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT
I believe that Apple had to post a bond of $2.6 million. My
understanding is that with the injunction lifted, Apple will
have to pay Samsung the bond because it was found non-
infringing.

That may be one small reason why Apple is fighting tooth and
nail to have ITS injunction hearing moved to the same date as
the Galaxy Tab 10.1 hearing - because it would have to pay
Samsung $2.6 million, and wait for at least 3 more months for
any potential payday.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • $2.6 million? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:19 AM 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 )