|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
| Please list the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
| For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post. A link to the story is also helpful for when the story
drops from the front page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the html in plain text mode so that she can
easily copy it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
This is with post jury interviews if people that read them, they had a great
summary on groklaw here. The jury completely screwed up what they were supposed
to do, where they were supposed to rule on a valid or invalid patent they tossed
out that possibility even with prior are proving the patent was invalid there in
the room with them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
Eh, it was kind of based on the premise that Software Patents Always Good
because money came out of it for my side, and Open Source always stops
innovation because no money came out of it for people I like.
After that it got a little hard to read or take seriously.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
Apple has found some interesting case law to support its
contention that its counterclaims are not moot. The idea is
that if Samsung has unclean hands or the patent is void,
then Apple is entitled to certain remedies (like attorney's
fees or voiding the patent) regardless of whether Apple
actually infringed those patents.
There's one problem with this theory: it relies on questions
of fact. To grant the remedies Apple wants,
"this Court [must conclude] that Samsung waived its rights
to enforce its patents by indicating to others in the
industry that it did not intend to enforce its patents
(waiver) or that Apple relied on Samsung’s misleading
conduct or silence regarding its intent to enforce its
patents (estoppel).
Apple could and should have asked for a jury ruling on those
facts. It's a little late now to be adding new legal
theories to the case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 10:51 PM EDT |
Of the photo of John Marl Pierce, are those green lasers where his eyes are
supposed to be?
I hope so. I'd like nothing better than to see this case remanded with a wee
bit of stern talk. This promises to be a very interesting case with lot's
awesome lawyer work yet to be displayed.
I'll admit P.J., I did not fully appreciate your comment that this story was far
from over until now. While many of us hold an opinion about the judgement, at
least we can look forward to getting a very entertaining and educational look at
how our courts and the people that serve those courts work.
If I was 40 years younger, I'd be thinking "Dang, I want to be a lawyer
like that when I grow up."
3514v[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
When I read this:
Samsung points that out, that the equitable
defenses are moot, but it asks the judge, if it grants Apple's request for
further motion practice, to make it mutual, and then Samsung will raise some
indefiniteness issues around design patents, like the D'889 rounded corners one
that it intended to put into its 50(b) motion. To which Apple says, Samsung
shouldn't be allowed to argue it now, as they tried it earlier and didn't win on
summary judgment and in addition it's a fact issue, not a matter of law. So
Apple wants the freedom to argue moot equitable defenses, but Samsung gets no
such opportunity. How very Apple. The new bully version.
Most cases
are like the old style warfare; Both parties line up their troops on a side then
duke it out until one side surrenders and the winner gets the spoils of war.
But
what apple is doing is more reminiscent of WW1 where parties fought to move the
front yards/meters.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
Does this mean that Samsung has used up its only post
judgement motion for relief without pointing out that they
weren't allowed to use their main defence, and that the jury
were unable to follow their instructions?
I assume I am misunderstanding what's happening here (or
what the motions are for), or is
it that Samsung have given up on getting anything out of
this
court, and are relying on an appeal to a higher court to set
this straight?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
I'm eager to see how the judge handles these decisions - the
jury bizaareness, Apple's instant motion, and so on. How
she handles these oddball situations will tell us a lot
about her independence and her ability to act towards some
justice.
Not that I expect Apple to lose everything and Samsung to be
exonerated. Not at all.
But the jury decision and subsequent comments, the various
goings on since, and Samsung's track record in other courts
(and even in other countries) must be throwing the Judge Koh
and number of curve balls. How does she nullify the
jury's half-assed decision without looking like a complete
idiot herself?
(I can imagine her waking up in the morning and saying "why
in the devil did I ever agree to take this case?")
The next three years of appeals will be fun to watch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
I've always liked this word. Without context, moot can
refer
to something that is either in doubt/debatable or has little
to no value - definitions that are almost mutually
exclusive. It's interesting reading the top paras with
both definitions in mind.
However, does the legal world have its own definition or is
the 'in doubt/debatable' definition used? What happens if
the parties get to court and each find the other party was
using the other definition?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Moot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT
- Moot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Moot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Moot - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
- Moot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
