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
Apple has lost it's Mojo | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple's turning into Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT

And ruining their reputation the same way Microsoft did. Too bad, it used to
be a nice company.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the posts title may be helpful.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple and Samsung Fight About Apple's Desire to File a Motion for Reconsideration Re Scheduling Hearing Dates ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT
"the public is for the most part repulsed by Apple's IP aggression"

Can you cite the properly-conducted survey demonstrating this, please?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT
Make links clickable. Please keep off the topic thread.
On-topic comments will be ignored.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT
Please make the title the same as the News Pick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Documents Here
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:35 PM EDT
You know the drill.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Equitableness ... in my dreams ;)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT
I know what would be equitable. Grant Apple's stay on posting
of a bond of $2.5 bn or whatever the damages Apple claimed
on the iPad which would be payable to Samsung should that
particular preliminary injunction not be turned into a permanent
injunction.

That should communicate to Apple about the damages
Samsung faces with an improper injunction especially now that
people know about the tab and that it does not infringe Apple's
design patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple has lost it's Mojo
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:24 PM EDT

That's what all the lawsuits are about. They are afraid that now with Steve Jobs gone, they have lost the magic. Once the products that were in the pipeline run out, they have no more. They know that. Their day is over. They even state on their financial forecasts they they are at risk of losing their Mojo. Apple will have it's Kodac moment not so long from now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doe it make sense for Samsung to challenge the ban?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT
Considering that they very well may be asking that the
verdict be set aside because of jury -- I don't like the word
misconduct, since I don't think the jury deliberately did
wrong. They were just lead oround by the nose by an idiot who
thinks he's an expert in patent law when he really clueless.
-- incompetence. I doubt that the judge will set aside the
part where Samsung is found infringing but not the part where
Samsung is not found infringing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple and Samsung Fight About Apple's Desire to File a Motion for Reconsideration Re Scheduling Hearing Dates ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:38 PM EDT
"Apple's lawyers are still clueless that the public is for the
most part repulsed by Apple's IP aggression."

I think many of us are also repulsed about how the court has
treated Samsung.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Definitely in the media
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 12:27 AM EDT
I think you might particularly like the last one:
I have to admit, I’m a huge Apple fan. I’ve bought practically every Apple device ever made. I am usually one of those in line the first day Apple releases a new product, and I own Apple stock. That said, I hope that Apple loses if Samsung appeals — as they are expected to do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compensation to Samsung for Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 12:31 AM EDT
Will Samsung be awarded compensations if the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is
lifted? The ban was granted under the assumption that it was likely that the
device would be found infringing, but since it's not the case shouldn't Samsung
be compensated for all these potential sales lost?

[ Reply to This | # ]

what happens to non-infringement in a retrail?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:30 AM EDT
if the Jury's verdict is thrown out and there is another trial, is the new trial
on all issues, even the ones where no infringement was found? or is it like a
criminal case where a new trial can only be done on matters where liability was
found to begin with?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple losing in court of public opinion?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT
I don't quite think so. While many are certainly repulsed, there are many who
haven't even HEARD of the Apple v Samsung matter. While I have been following
this closely, my wife knows nothing about it.

Recently, a news article was out talking about the explosion of sales of Samsung
gear and I thought to myself "hey, I think I should get the i9300 before I
cannot get it" and so informed my wife of my intentions to spend the $600.
She said "go ahead" but reminded me it wasn't a great idea for other
reasons. (She has me passive-aggressively whipped I guess... she defeated me
with logic and reason) But I had to explain to her what was up with Apple and
what they were doing.

She's an Apple user but uses a Galaxy S phone. Not a "fan" of
either... just clueless about anything that doesn't affect her directly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple asks UK government for $1 trillion for infringement of Apple's patents.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT
Apple who is suing the UK government for wilful infringement of Apple's patents on rectangles, flat faces and rounded corners, presented photographs showing clear evidence of wilful infringement of its inventions and design patents relating to rectangles, rounded corners and flat faces in the Stonehenge monument in England.

The photo submitted in evidence

An Apple spokesman made a statement outside outside court about how Apple will do everything in their power to protect their innovations and the IP they own. "We at Apple have spend enormous time and expense inventing the rectangle, rounded corners and flat faces, and we are seeking a worldwide ban on others using our technology, and punitive damages from those who have infringed on our inventions", he said, adding that "What was particularly galling about this case was not only that our inventions were being willfully infinged, but that they had been wilfully and continuously infringed for so long - all the way back to the stone age in this case". "We will definitely be asking for triple damages on top of the $2.5 billion damages claimed and interest payment due over the past 5,000 years, taking the sum up to $ 1 trillion", he confirmed, "The UK government as the successor to the Stonehenge estate will have to pay for their theft of Apple IP".

In court today, the UK government's representative asked judge KO, the judge presiding the case, for the opportunity to present evidence and expert testimony in court that would prove that Apple's patents and design patents on the rectangle, rounded corner and flat faces are invalidated because the Stonehenge monuments preceded Apple's patents and so were prior art. However Judge KO ruled this evidence and testimony in admissible in court because it was filed too late due to the fact that it should have been filed within three months of the date the infringement occured, meaning that the deadline for filing - 31 Oct 3026 BC - had lapsed. The UK government's lawyer protested "what is the point of having a trial if the evidence that can disprove the lawsuit cannot be presented?".

Judge KO's reply was that "They were worrying excessively", adding that "The jury foreman owns a similar patent to Apple's which he is defending against a similar prior art challenge, and he can therefore act as an expert witness and provide the necessary jury instruction during deliberation if necessary". Much to the UK government's chagrin, judge KO then allowed Apple's late submission of videos of rubber balls bouncing off the monuments as evidence that Stonehenge infringes on Apple's bounce-back patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question about Apple's patents...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
If I remember right, in Google/Oracle, the USPTO found large portions of
Oracle's patents invalid. Including the design patents, has any challenge been
made to the USPTO? If not, I'm sincerely surprised. And puzzled.

On a different note, I wonder how long it will be until Samsung starts trying to
void its contracts with Apple. How many iThings can Apple make without the
parts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question on software copyrights v patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT
I'm not a lawyer but am interested in the issues surrounding copyright and
patents for software programs. I'm hoping some of the lawyers on the site
might be able to help me understand IP protection for software.

It is my understanding that books can be copyrighted but not patented.
However, the copyright extends beyond the literal words of the book and also
covers (within limits) the IDEAS or CONCEPT of the book. For instance, were I
to write a story about a boy magician named Parry Hotter who went off to
wizarding school, etc., etc., I could be sued for copyright infringement of the

Harry Potter novels even if the entire text was of my own creation. Is that
correct?

Is there an analogous protection for software code and copyrights? In other
words, is the idea or concept behind a piece of software protected or only the
literal code? I'm interested because if it is the latter, it would seem that
copyright law provides very little (if any) protection of software intellectual

property given that it is fairly trivial to rewrite code (which is invisible to
the
end user anyway) to accomplish the same idea.

It's apparent to me that a lot of people think that software patents are bad,
and I'm currently trying to understand whether copyright law would provide a
level of protection of original ideas underlying the software itself. Or are
people of the opinion that the ideas behind software are somehow not worthy
of intellectual property protection and if so, why is software different than
novels in this respect?

thanks
JC

[ Reply to This | # ]

Duking it out
Authored by: llanitedave on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT
"Patience, grasshoppers, and watch two superlatively skilled law firms duke
it out. Not that I like patent infringement lawsuits. But I do love to watch the
skill in play."

To me, that's reminiscent of saying one enjoys the bloody spectacle of two
skilled gladiators fighting to the death in the Roman amphitheater, even though
we know in our hearts it's evil and barbaric.

Evil, no matter how skillfully applied, is still evil.

---
Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple letters?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT
Sorry but i have to ask since im Swedish...

If Apple is sending out "letters to multiple carriers and downstream
customers", as stated in the text above.
Especially when they seem to be aware that it is false statements.
Is that legal? Or are they opening up a second separate run for Samsung to sue
Apple because they have been acting so actively before/during/after trial from
what seems to be an obvious attempt to stop their competitor even without due
process?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Apple letters? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT
    • Apple letters? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 10:16 PM EDT
  • Apple letters? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 03:12 AM EDT
The Apple brand is exactly maching what we are seeing. (n/t).
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT
No text here, mate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple tries to ban Galaxy S3 and Note
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57504756-37/apple-goes-after-galaxy-s3-note-in
-new-court-filing/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Danegeld
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT
I think I know what you are thinking. You're thinking, with the strangest jury verdict you've ever seen, why are they arguing about this scheduling business? It's all interrelated. Patience, grasshoppers, and watch two superlatively skilled law firms duke it out. Not that I like patent infringement lawsuits. But I do love to watch the skill in play.

It's all about money. Apple's trying to keep as many of Samsung's products blocked from sale in the US for as long as possible to put as much economic pressure as they can on Samsung to settle. And as entertaining as the game is, it's still using the courts as a weapon in a non-legal fight. The right response, the equitable response, would be "The jury has found that product non-infringing. If Apple wishes to not have the injunction dissolved immediately, Apple will be required to post a bond equal to the economic damages to Samsung caused by the blocking of sale of their non-infringing legal product.".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's lawyers are still clueless that the public is for the most part repulsed by Apple's IP a
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT
Data to support this statement. Your opinion is not most people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple and Samsung Fight About Apple's Desire to File a Motion for Reconsideration Re Scheduling Hearing Dates ~pj
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 02:11 AM EDT
    Of course, I'm curious how easy it might be to trick this software.

    ---
    -Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    (trying to posting anonymously :-)

    [ 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 )