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
You don't suppose there's a verifiable rumor out there that Apple *did* contact Hogan??? | 312 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You don't suppose there's a verifiable rumor out there that Apple *did* contact Hogan???
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:10 AM EDT
It went away when Samsung pointed it out (that they had actually been keeping
the potential evidence much before Apple did and as Apple was the plaintiff they
OUGHT to know when the litigation would be starting) and with agreement with
Judge Koh, but Apple originally got the sanction from the Magistrate.

The point is, why did Apple get it in the first place when they themselves were
more guilty of it?

They were clearly trying to show Samsung in bad light, but they themselves when
pointing the finger at Samsung had three and a thumb pointing back at themselves
which were accurate in that they guilty was greater and that they were worse.

IT would have probably been more interesting (and equitable) that Samsung had
forced a sanction against Apple, the Plaintiff, for exactly the same thing, but
for doing it worse: ie even as Plaintiff they did not start saving the data
until AFTER Samsung.

Even though the sanction went away, it is public record that they got it when
they were more guilty of it themselves. Which is why I cannot now trust Apple
fully in anything they say bad about anyone else: there is now a nagging voice
telling me that Apple have been doing whatever they charge the other party of
doing but on a larger scale!

It is clearly in the nature of Apple['s lawyers] to claim others are doing what
Apple are doing loudly so as to divert attention away from the fact that Apple
are doing it.

So for Apple to loudly claim that Samsung has been copying their products tells
me that it is highly probable (with near certainty) that Apple has been copying
others [product] in the first place, but to a much greater amount.

[ 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 )