|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
" it is in the interest of judicial economy that we address a
limited aspect of the district court’s likelihood of success
analysis that may become important on remand"
them is some powerful words.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
The issue here seems to be the amount of attention to detail in a case
potentially worth billions of dollars. Judge Koh perhaps came to realization
she was being gamed a bit late ("I don't trust what any lawyer tells me in
this courtroom. I want to see actual papers.").
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 11:20 PM EDT |
I think I may safely opine that when the appeals court tells a
district court judge that she has misunderstood a case and that her reliance on
it is "at best incorrect," it's not good. "At best." Wow.
Well,
technically, that is probably true If it ever happens, it might be a big deal.
Saying something like that might be appropriate then. It didn't happen here,
though. The "Wow" makes what didn't happen seem like a big deal. As far as
whether or not it would be safe to opine, it would probably be best to wait for
an appropriate situation.
PJ also said:
The appeals court tells the
district court that its reliance on a certain case was "at best
incorrect".
That's incorrect. What it said was this:
Here, the district court eliminated the very distinction that we
deemed material in ResQNet by plucking “each” from where it appears and
planting it before the phrase “plu-rality of modules.” That was error, and
Apple’s reliance on ResQNet based on the assertion that it “involv[ed]
almost identical claim language” is—at best—incorrect. Clearly that
says one thing about Apple and another thing about the district court. For the
district court, it said, "That was error." For Apple, it said, "at best
incorrect".
What do you call sneering at a judge and being incorrect? "At
best, incorrect?"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:30 AM EDT |
It sounds like a bit of a threat to me. The only thing worse
than incorrect that comes to mind is "maliciously misleading",
i.e. incorrect with an intent to knowingly cover up the
wrongness.
Just my $0.02
~cd[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
