Why doesn't the "with prejudice" matter? Because it doesn't apply
to any other company or situation.
Bolding mine. Please
point to where I said it applied to other companies or other
situations.
The article is in the context of the Apple vs Motorola case.
And I spoke only within that context. So what I said can only be meaningfully
construed as:
That certainly means Apple won't be able to raise that issue
again except via Appeal [in their case against Motorola. They won't be able to
initiate another Lawsuit against Motorola for the same purpose.]
You said
"applied to other companies" but I suggest you attempt to explain how Apple
appealing this decision would ever apply to other companies. Obviously I meant
strictly within the context of Apple vs Motorola and any future attack against
Motorola Apple might want to make.
I don't think that "with
prejudice" has much impact.
I disagree. If the case had been
dismissed without prejudice Apple would have been free to amend the complaint
and raise it again. A dismissal with prejudice means Apple is forbidden from
raising this particular complaint in this particular situation against Motorola
again.
Of course IANAL, but that's how I understand the phrase in the
context of a Judicial ruling "with prejudice" vs "without prejudice".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
