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
Unanimity | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple Fanboi Troll.....(n/t)
Authored by: deck2 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Unanimity
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT
The other problem that's become apparent in the post-trial
interviews--which are transcribed on the web and on Youtube--
is the erroneous damage calculation. The jury, once again,
ignored their instructions and applied punitive damages. I
don't see how any part of this verdict can stand.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Unanimity - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:56 PM EDT
Moot ...
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:53 PM EDT
The jury misconduct can only be moot if the judge sets aside the whole of their
verdict for other reasons, I cannot see that happening nor can I see any appeals
court allowing this sort of misconduct being allowed to slip by.

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Moot ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:05 PM EDT
" innovative design differentiates their products"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:41 PM EDT
Let Apple continue convincing people that they have innovative design, despite
the fact that others have built the technology first or at least described the
design before it could be built. I have stock in Apple, this is a good thing
for me.

I would agree that Apple gets patent protection if Apple held a patent on
something like actual touch screen technology, and if this were so, then Apple
has the right to control the manufacturer and sales of devices with touch
screens. However, you are arguing that something such as Apple's use of a touch
screen (developed and built by someone else) in a phone is something that should
be protected by patent, which is a fairly obvious use in any device that has to
fit in a pocket. Apple does not own a patent on touch screens, nor should they
have a patent on the use of a touch screen or anything else that is blinding
obvious.

[ 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 )