|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
"I've looked at it in detail, totally understand it, and will dazzle you
with my brilliance shortly, but first, I'd like to draw attention to how badly
Android is going to lose no matter what on this, my payments from Microsoft have
come through and re-assured me how drastically Google is going to have to accept
total failure in everything they do."
How's that for starters?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:23 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MadTom1999 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
"Groklaw is out to get me"
Oh hang on, that’s too near the truth for him to write...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
| my GOD, you must be his twin brother! ! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
Steps: 1) spin a "Samsung is desparate" view, 2) present an
"ethical" viewpoint, 3) predict what the judge will do.
"Samsung has now places it's future in the hands of a judicial technicality
and in the hands of Judge Koh in a pleading that is no longer based on the
merits of any evidence presented to the jury. Anyone can see that the merits of
the evidence that the jury considers is more important in a final resolution to
a case than these types of judicial technicalities. Certainly the judge can see
it and certainly we can expect a response from the judge essentially saying, –
You can't break the rules, you can't infringe on the intellectual property and
get away with it."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
First, no problem here except that Samsung is a sore loser.
Second, it's all Samsung's fault, and they need to be
penalized for it.
Third, FM will let the judges speak for him. They validate
what he says.
---
"If FISA should ask, I was never here." Anonymous[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
"The timing of Samsung's filing seems rather suspicious. It stretches
credibility that the wife of a partner of the legal firm conducting Samsung's
defense happens to dig up dirt on the person most responsible for their biggest
defeat in years just after the decision has been handed down. It is doubly
suspicious that this question did not come out during the jury selection
process, where Samsung had every opportunity to question Mr. Hogan about it.
"At the very least, this seems like sloppy legal work by Samsung's lawyers.
But it is more than that -- it is a desperate move against a man who has
sacrificed his time, financial compensation, and (now) a harrassment-free
existence to end the intellectual property free-for-all rampant among makers of
Android phones, of which Samsung, being the current standard-bearer, is chief
beneficiary."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
Otherwise, how can I believe anything i read on it including the Groklaw
article?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
is that he's not going to comment on the Jury misconduct
thing, but leave it to others who have better access to the
sources.
He does add that even if Samsung get another case, they
won't be able to hide or explain the vast amount of evidence
of copying, and they'll lose again.
So he's already decided the verdict of the re-trial -
there's no point in doing it now, we may as well just
believe him.
-stevos
not a lawyer[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
