|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
error -> correction
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
Thanks to Richard for allowing Groklaw to republish this here,
and for having done that analysis as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Chinese company uses leaked photos to copy, patent iPhone 5 design - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- Baking a KindleBerry Pi - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM EDT
- "New feature": iPhone 5 not back compatible for free... - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- D604,305 and iPhone 5 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- CBC: Instagram hashtags help Aussie police crack down on marijuana - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Want global LTE roaming on iPhone 5? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- Google's Enlightening Statement on FRAND Related Patent Injunctions to Congressional Commitee! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 13 2012 @ 12:56 AM EDT
- Apple founder regrets patent dispute - ... not that innovative - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 13 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT
- Chip-and-pin security is completely broken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 13 2012 @ 11:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
Hmm, this case becomes really disgusting. I feel like watching a soap opera and
it's hard to believe how could the judicial system allow such.
Triple damages for the party being anal and dishonest in the case is the only
fix for that. Not only should Apple pay Samsung but it must be triple the
damages.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
So what happened here?
Was this a failure to ask the question? (i.e., a deficiency in the verdict form)
Or was it a failure to answer it? (i.e., a lack of diligence in the jury's
following of instructions)
Is it possible that the plaintiff thought it might be more likely to get trebled
damages "out of the hat" than through explicitly stated instructions,
and therefore collaborated with the defence in leaving out the necessary
instructions? Or did the verdict form just get so overwhelmingly big there was
no room to splice it in?
cpeterson, WINAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
Quoting 1960s television to propose a theory displays commendable erudition.
Meanwhile,
It is impossible to discern from the jury’s responses
to Jury
Questions 22 and 23, whether any portions of this amount was an award
of
Samsung’s profits under Section 289 I suspect the loose tongued
Mr Hogan has explained the numbers in all those other boxes on the form, but if
the form itself does not explain the allocation according to S.289, then we are
indeed doomed. Will the whole case have to be rinsed and repeated?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
.
Wow! It smells even more. An expert, Professor Redano, chimes in with further
serious inadequacies with the verdict form. They should have used his tables
and consulted him. [Did someone?] The statutory damages for the various kinds of
patents is complex and this jury didn't even get a chance to smooth them out.
The verdict form was inadequate. It promotes uncertainty and speculation.
1. The Foreman could eagerly clear this all up, but that highlights some other
parts of this verdict's problem. The jury couldn't give these issues proper
consideration since they weren't instructed or given a proper form.
2. Poor Judge Koh. Is she snakebit by the failure of the adversary system?
She is not a patent expert. The patent expert lawyers trying this case didn't
brief her on these angles. Mr. Redano who is an expert in these areas has shown
them all up and all but eliminated punitive damages. Did the Apple lawyers
know? Did they pull these specific punches to lessen scrutiny of Apple's
patents? Of course the Samsung lawyers aren't in the business of prosecuting
their clients and enabling punitive damages. Did they see this and smirk in
their hands as the final Verdict Form was approved by Judge Koh? It can be
argued that she rushed everything too much and they missed these distinctions.
Samsung is going to object to all punitive damages. If Redano is right, there
shouldn't be any. Then the question becomes what part of the damages is
punitive.
3. Compounding this problem is the Foreman's indication that part of the
billion was to teach Samsung a lesson. That is punitive. Remittance is in
order. In order to save this pile, Koh should have a hearing, parcel out the
damages, and heed Redano in the process.
4. Poor Judge. As with SCO, this case is just a piece of someone's global
commercial war, in and out of court. The Court of Appeals already shot her down
on the preliminary injunction. She was right on that. It is going to be harder
for her to feel right about damages and the verdict itself. She has learned a
bit. Will she give herself a "do-over?"
5. [This is a verdict digression that won't be stifled. As vocal as the
Foreman had been it seems that other jurors have remained silent. That may not
be so since they could have talked to the parties quietly or in confidence.
There may be much more material besides the Foreman, especially if one of them
feels bamboozled by him. This may be the case that inspires patent litigation
reform, or a revolt from the judges. It is like they flipped the coin
"AFTER" the game!]
~webster~
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
Two questions.
1) Who is Mr. Redano?
2) How would his report have a significant impact on this
case?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
