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
that they'd they'd | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"upheld" link broken
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
In the first paragraph, the link to the appeal has a groklaw prefix before the
bailii URL.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

iPad NOT iPhone
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT
Article mentions iPhone, however, this case/appeal was only about the iPad

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Legal - Did Samsumg/Appeal Court agree the wording?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
Sorry if I put this in the wrong place. But the original publicity order was
amended by the appeal judges, in part due to the original "not as
cool" publicity.

1) The appeal judges were minded to not enforce the publicity order on Apple but
felt they needed to because of the publicity arising from Apple obtaining the
exparte injuction against samsung in the German court (see appeal report para
86-87)

2) The appeal court dictated the *exact* wording of the notice "Subject to
anything that may be submitted by either side" (see appeal para 89) -
Although Apple have included the same words from the appeal court notice it is
not the exact notice as they were ordered to publish.

3) I'll be amazed if the court or Samsung actually agreed to the wording as
published by Apple - the appeal court ordered (p88) "In the result I would
dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other
way as may be agreed or settled by further argument." Meaning court (pos
both parties) needed to agree in the content of the notice.

4) The spirit behind the publicity order was to dispel consumer uncertainty
because of Apple and the German court injuction. (see Appeal para 84)
"Another lot of media reports, reporting more or less accurately that
Samsung have not only finally won but been vindicated on appeal may not be
enough to disperse all the fog. It is now necessary to make assurance doubly so.
Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that
it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not
infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's
mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely. "

Hope this is some use

Mark


PS: Apple agreed to discharge the German injunction at the appeal; if Apple
hadn't agreed to discharge the German injuction the publicity/notice period
would have been longer (see appeal para 86)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple did not provide you with a link -> they have, now
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT
looks like they've added the link to the case

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

noting the update in the article title
Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:24 AM EDT
Isn't it customary for PJ to note in the article title that there has been an
update?

(This is not strictly necessary for the correction, but I feel impelled to say
that the update is an excellent one.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

s/coicidence/coincidence NT
Authored by: RichardB on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

that they'd they'd
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
they'd they'd => they'd

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Newspick truncated?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 03:34 AM EDT
Something seems to be missing after this:

American history." - <b>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Motorola v MS
Authored by: Tufty on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT
I am just getting pyjama stripes for the new article!!! Newspicks and the LH
column seem to be there but out of place.

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ 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 )