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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Please define "late" ... | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
But, there's a pretty fair amount of issues with management..as evidenced by Alsup
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT
That Judge Alsup wisely broke the Oracle/Google trial into phases.

Judge Koh, unfortunately, did not...IMHO, she should have had the following
phases:
1) Validity of all patents and all trade dress in suit (possibly broken into
Samsung's first, then Apples)
2) Infringement of said patents/trade dress
3) Damages of any infringement found.

If you will notice, there was no phase 3 for Judge Alsup. In my opinion(as
inventor on 2 patents), not one of the patents in this trial should ever have
issued on either side on obviousness grounds. So there's a bias towards
validity of obvious patents, which is very much against the public interest.
Amicus, anyone?

There's also a dozen or more phones involved. That's nuts, parties should have
been forced to narrow it to no more than three.

The time management of translated testimony is also at issue, as is the frankly
prejudicial unavailability of Apple designer Nishibori for deposition by
Samsung.

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Please define "late" ...
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT
It seems (dunno if it was this particular instance) Apple brought in a load of
NEW evidence in discovery a couple of hours before the deadline.

It took Samsung *one* *day* to respond. The response was ruled out because it
was late.

imho that's "trial by ambush" which isn't supposed to happen...

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's the pattern of behavior
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT
She made a number of decisions that were excessively
prejudicial to Samsung.

- spoliation of evidence
- prior art 1 day late
- etc.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )