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
Your point being? | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Your point being?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT

That perhaps the Court asked Apple to outline the US Case as though that has some bearing on the UK Consumer market?

My point being: you never actually stated that Apple was not playing word games with the Court - the whole point to the original post. As a result, your comment is fairly meaningless as applied to the original post... unless you'd like to clarify what you meant?

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yup the Court's instruction was clear
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
It decreed that Apple must publish that Samsung did not infringe. It specified
the minimum vehicles of said publishing. The Appeal Court also noted the
wrongdoing of the German Court and questioned its legality. Look out for more
fireworks methinks.

[ 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 )