|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
What do you call sneering at a judge and being incorrect? "At best,
incorrect?" I call it letting your bias cloud your reading.
Sometimes PJ is 200% anti Apple (and Microsoft).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
Heh heh. Here's what the court said about the district court:
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.” Apple relied on that case, its
incorrect version of it, and the judge
fell for it.
You think that's better? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:07 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT |
However you want to try and spin it, the appeals court has
gone out of it's way to intervene before they are supposed
to, "in the interest of judicial economy" to tell the judge
and Apple that they have got this one wrong and they will
lose on appeal. So they might as well fix the problem now
before they have to be slapped down any harder.
This has been a pretty bad couple of weeks for Apple, and
their legal cases - the product bans and the FRAND issues -
are falling apart.
SO yeah: Wow.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
So PJ gets it 'wrong' by saying Koh was 'at best, incorrect'
when this was said about Apple.
So, substituting the correct terms, instead we have:
I think I may safely opine that when the appeals court tells
a district court judge that she has misunderstood a case and
made "an error," it's not good. "Error." Wow.
I fail to see how this is 'at best, incorrect' as you
suggest. To me it's a case of 'at worst, technically
inaccurate', but then i'm not a hater.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
