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
meh | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
meh
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
It's not about the damages.

It's about the patents and the possibility that Apple will be
able to "blackmail" them.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

doubtful
Authored by: janolder on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
From a financial standpoint, Samsung would probably do better to argue down damages. If it insists upon a new trial and loses then triple damages are are a certainty.
From what I gather the jury was ready to find for Samsung until a certain confused juror on a mission to punish Samsung had his 'aha' moment and managed to convince the other jurors of his incorrect interpretation of patent law.

This is all so blatantly wrong - I'm surprised PJ hasn't lost her faith in the US legal system yet.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

meh
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT
"And I expect that Apple will probably do better in the
do-over."

You apparently don't understand there will be a different
jury, or that Samsung will get a chance to provide certain
evidence that was excluded.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • meh - Authored by: nola on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT
meh
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
Given that Hogan was, initially, in a minority of one as I understood, I don't
think that would be right.

I get the impression that he rapidly swayed them to his view, but from somewhere
(the other juror who spoke out?) I got the impression the "first
impression" of the other jurors was for Samsung.

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )