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
Off topic discussions | 241 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: jesse on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 01:03 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 01:03 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES thread
Authored by: jesse on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here comes the pain
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT
Anyone got the feeling that Samsung has found out something else about Hogan and
is setting a trap for Apple?

Not sure if it's something that'll take out Hogan badly, Apple, or their Lawyers
but... something... feels like a hole in the ground covered by sticks and
branches.

And the spikes in the bottom of the pit don't have rounded corners.

[ Reply to This | # ]

By challenging the reasonableness of Samsung’s investigation, Apple has put the extent of itsown
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT
...its own knowledge and investigation at issue.

Oh Wow!

Apple has really stepped in it here.

Waiting for the reply with more than a little interest.

Surely Apple couldn’t have known?


---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Between a rock and a hard place
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT
The problem Apple has with its argument is either it
believes there is an obligation to investigate jurors or it
doesn't.

If it doesn't then it has no grounds to complain that
Samsung didn't.

If it does, then it would have been expected to investigate
for itself, would have discovered the cases and kept quiet
about them.

This could be very bad for apple. I can imagine the judge
may be curious enough now to compel.

Stevos - IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Does it make you want to reward the company with your hard-earned money?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
Heck no, I used to buy Sony, until they screwed me on the PS3. I didn't update
my firmware so I could still use other OS and play my old offlline games.

Until I bought a Sony Entertainment movie on Bluray and it refused to play
claiming it needed a newer firmware! And I realised that Sony was doing
everything possible to make me update fw. Movies from the same or later release
dates played perfectly without an update.

Apple took away a function I used on my 3G (tethering) allegedly on behalve of
AT&T. I'm not even in the bloody US of A, so why??? I could choose not to
update, but then new apps would slowly stop working. They reintroduced tethering
later, but by then I had an android phone and I never want another Apple product
in my life.

I only wish more people would vote with their wallet and just let those two
companies tank.

(By now only a Sony TV left in my house, where previously everything was Sony.
Marantz and LG thank you, Sony; for being such idiots)

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Apple's brand is being ruined"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
I've always been confused by this opinion of recent Apple actions. Many seem to hold a belief that Apple was once a fine, upstanding corporate citizen that has recently become drunk on IP litigation.

The truth is that Apple has always been this way. It's Steve's legacy. Am I the only one old enough to remember the look-and-feel lawsuits of the late '80s? The only difference now is that Apple is bigger (and the patent office lazier), so the stakes are higher.

See this post for one example. I've had one of those buttons in my briefcase for over 30 years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brilliant argument.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
I was really disappointed with Samsung lawyers so far, but it
looks like they now woke up. They hit the nail on the head
with this argument. I wish them all the best in overturning
this ridiculous verdict. That Hogan guy should also have to
face some penalty for perjury.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT
    • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT
      • Is it an obviously dropped ball? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
        • Yes - Authored by: webster on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 09:55 PM EDT
          • Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT
        • Pawn sacrifice? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 08:45 AM EDT
  • Good I guess but brilliant? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 12:58 AM EDT
The Verdict. What a Mess! It always is.
Authored by: webster on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT
.

The parties couldn't work out their disputes themselves so
they placed them before the court. This of course leads to
more disputes involving court procedures like discovery and
trials and such. It is a messy process.

There are various goals a party may have in permitting their
dispute to go to court. These goals my not have much to do
with the particular claims at issue. It's like the Monopoly
comes calling inviting your company to license some patents.
They don't necessarily tell you what the patents are, what
they do, and where you befoul them. They just want a piece
of your business unless you can withstand a blizzard of
claims, lawsuits, and your own legal fees. Presumably Apple
started this dispute as with the suit itself. The parties
want to win or get a decision or settlement they can live
with. Ultimately, with a finally final court decision they
MUST live with it. It is not over until it is over and the
fat lady has not even begun to gargle. Worst of all neither
party makes the decision. They roll the dice. This is like
winning the Super Bowl 20-0, but having to settle the
arguments first, starting with the coin toss.

The court's job is to produce a decision. It is sometimes
called justice. There are several factors that go into this
decision including fact submissions, witnesses, jurors,
experts, arguments, truths, versions, judges and appeals.
It has been oft-repeated here, litigation is like riding a
dizzy snake. A billion dollars is worth fighting over --a
lot. Think of how many of the world's school children could
have been given a laptop with the money spent on legal fees
in this case.

There is at least as much going on in this case post-trial
as pre-trial. One of the Apple patents was invalidated by
the USPTO in October --the rubber band patent, based on
prior art. There is an immense amount of material being
filed for Koh to consider and decide. Imagine, this is just
one case on her calendar! They should be giving her some
extra law-clerk time and interns.

This is a troubled verdict for many reasons. It was a snap
decision given the numerous issues and the evidence
presented. It was inconsistent and erroneous as far as
damages. The voir dire, which is the jury selection process
that means "speak the truth," appears to have failed for
several reasons.

From a desert island, the Skipper Velvin, Ilagan, and the
Seven Dwarves have produced a prank for a verdict.

Today's Goodies: Vicki and Rich - Exhibit B. "I love you"
if we could define the terms. There is a nook in Apple's
stone wall. It is the disclosure, or their failure to
disclose when they learned of Velvin's Seagate litigation.
Apple's sensitivity belies the truth. They say Samsung
should have known. Apple knew. Apple should have told the
Court. Now Judge Koh has a shortcut out of this mess --
declare a mistrial and have Apple pay legal fees since the
voir dire. The parties are pretty strident with a billion
at stake and millions slipping through the fingers.

A lawyer has a duty to the court not just his client.
[Anecdotage Warning:] Counsel once had a former witness of
his on the jury panel. The potential juror also had a
felony conviction. The juror disclosed nothing to the
court. Counsel did not disclose anything; he hoped the
prosecution would use one of their peremptory strikes on
him. Only if that juror was going to be seated would he
advise the court. The juror was never in the box.

Samsung has two conclusions to the Motion to Compel Apple to
disclose Velvin's Seagate litigation: one if they knew at
voir dire and one if they didn't. They are both bad for
Apple. The former would show Apple misconduct, the latter
that the failure to discover should not be held against
Samsung. Apple has forked itself.

This comment has sat for weeks but today's thrills flushed
it out.

~webster~

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"have you ever"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 10:10 PM EDT
So, I am not a native English speaker, but I am a bit puzzled at the assertion
(that most people seem to support here) that "have you ever" compels
one to disclose all instances of the thing under discussion.

To take a non-legal example, if someone asked "have you ever kissed a
girl" I might say "yes", or if I wanted to give supporting
examples "Yes, I am actually married with children", or "Yes, I
had my first girlfriend when I was 13", and I would think that any of these
fully answer the question.

I am curious as to why people would think the judge's question is to be
interpreted differently ?

(now to be clear: I am no Apple fanboy, I actually disagree with almost all of
their other points...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What was Apple thinking?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
Couldn't they see this coming? It is like running to the cops to complain that
someone stole your drug stash.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The sad consequence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 04:04 AM EDT

PJ wrote:

"[...]fight, in a court of law when there is plenty of money available"
(emphasis mine)

That, unfortunately, is the sad backdrop for this battle; the untold millions being poured into this black hole. Millions that the buying public will have to cover through higher costs for no benefit in terms of features, economy-of-scale, or innovation.
Millions shoveled into the pockets of high-profile lawyers.
From us to you.

It would be sad if it wasn't so stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Samsung statement from their web site
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 06:10 AM EDT
On Apple's UK home page at the bottom is the statement:

On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in
relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and
did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The
correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.


The statement that is linked to reads:

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9 July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung
Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1,
Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s Community registered design No.
0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of
the High Court is available from
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the
Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of
Appeal’s judgment is available from
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in
respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's UK apology - does it count if its not seen?
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT
Never shows, unless you scroll down :-)

Interesting that no matter what resolution you choose the small print at the
bottom of the page is never show, unless you scroll down :-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )