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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Counterpoint | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Counterpoint
Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:47 PM EST
While context matters and in this case you might be right...

There is nothing good about an attitude of "If you weren't
guilty you'd say something". Silence should never be evidence
of guilt.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Exactly
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 10:21 PM EST

Samsung wants to use the date on which Apple found out to either get themselves
off the hook (for Apple's claim that they should have known sooner) or to
suggest that Apple should have disclosed as soon as they knew.

Apple appear to be putting the argument, "When we knew isn't pertinent, so
we don't have to tell you." Their position is that Samsung have been
insufficiently diligent and whether Apple were diligent or not doesn't excuse
Samsung.

The judge may buy this; I hope not.

[ 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 )