|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
One document reviewed by CNET shows Samsung
predicting its
arguments will likely "subject all of the
jurors to extra-judicial scrutiny and
public criticism which
they may find unwelcome and intrusive" and that both
sides
be "ordered to have no further contact with any of the
jurors" for now.
In addition, Samsung warns, "future
proceedings on this matter may be
compromised by further
inquiries from the parties, the media and others, and
attendant publicity."
Well, I wonder what ol' Velvin will have
to say about this?
;-) ---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
Samsung goes after jury foreman in bid
to reverse Apple verdict
His post-trial comments led some
commenters to question whether the jury placed undue reliance on his
explanations of the relevant law and calculations of
damages.
Isn't the mere fact that he presented his own
"explanations of the relevant law" a cause for mistrial?
He is not the one to
determine which law is relevant, and his layman explanations of it should not be
allowed, much less trusted, in the jury deliberations. Both of those tasks fall
on the court, not him. Add to this that he was demonstrably wrong on several
accounts, e.g. made up his own conditions for what should constitute valid prior
art, and I think Samsung can make a pretty strong case for a retrial if they get
to ask him and the jury formal questions of what went down behind those doors
during deliberations.
Of course, that is merely my layman's opinion, and
as such it should not be trusted, but my bets are definitely not on Apple
here.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
Bloomberg Newspick [PJ:
Apple reduced its order of displays and chips from Samsung. So there you go. Now
it doesn't
have enough, its stock took a hit, and customers are waiting. You
reap what you sow. The patent wars are taking a huge toll on everyone,
including Apple.]
Well, please explain why the
IHS teardown Newspick didn't even mention the display?
I'll go with the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, given the iPhone
5
has a new display technology, that Samsung simply didn't yet have the capacity
to supply itself and Apple. As a smartphone buyer who is
slightly aware of
these matters I'd be concerned if there was only one source on Earth for these
displays. I'd even suggest compulsory
licensing of the technology to other
factories.
Another well known
teardown site commends Apple for the
way the new display is mounted. One
(special) screwdriver and a suction cup are all that are required to replace the
display should the need
arise.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
| "There was no jury misconduct at all," Hogan said.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/business/ci_21621841/samsung-
apple-seeks-new-trial-l
egal-feud-smartphone
Not that he probably has any idea what the
misconduct
relay to, but I would bet he's scrambling to get the jury
story
straight. I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation
reveals nothing untoward
simply because it's so hard to
prove. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
