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
Is it your Money? | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I can't get past all the money wasted on Mr. Hogan...
Authored by: dbc on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
I'm wondering what possible recourse exists? I'm pretty sure that jurors have
fairly broad immunity -- otherwise serving on a jury would be untenable. Still,
I would guess that the court could find a juror in contempt, and IIRC voir dire
is subject to perjury. Maybe somebody who knows can fill us in.

In any case, I suspect most judges would be hesitant to drop the hammer unless
it was an extremely clear-cut case.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cheap for Apple
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT
Apple was able to publicly damage a major competitor, may have got more converts than normal (although may have backfired as Galaxy 3 sales were up), and might even get a huge payout plus removing a competitor from the big game.

Defending oneself is not cheap for Samsung but losing would be extremely expensive.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Is it your Money?
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
No.

No money has been wasted.

In fact, one can argue that it is money well spent
if you consider that this case (well, now cases),
is actually demonstrating the absolute insanity of
"software patents".

My condolences if you have Apple or Microsoft stock.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Just a corporate gamble
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT
For Apple this is not money of any consequence, this is just a another corporate
gamble the juries only function is to be the coin, whether it came up heads or
tails was accounted for before they even filed suit. Samsung on the other hand
was the victim, unless they made a decision during the design process to risk a
fight with Apple by making a similar design. The patent stuff is next to
impossible to account for so they were probably the victim in that aspect of
this case.


---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.

[ 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 )