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
Exactly | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Exactly
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:14 PM EST
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on
your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.

So clearly the action to take here, in option number three.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Talk lots, just be careful not to say anything. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:16 PM EST
  • Exactly - Authored by: darrellb on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 06:56 PM EST
    • Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 12:38 PM EST
      • Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 10:53 PM EST
        • Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 11:33 AM EST
Exactly
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 02:38 PM EST
Unfortunately, fighting to not give one is just as damning, if not more so -
sins of omission are just as bad (if not worse) than sins of commission.

By fighting instead of replying, they clearly have something to hide, in which
case prior examples of their actions will have to be used: instant thought is
getting Samsung sanctioned for not keeping evidence when they were not keeping
the same [kind of] evidence for much longer, ie loudly declaiming against
Samsung when they were more guilty.

In this case, they have loudly said Samsung should have acted earlier which to
me says they had the ability to act even earlier but didn't. ie it is highly
probable that Apple knew/realised the link /BEFORE/ Samsung.

If Apple would like to prove me wrong by answering the question under oath, I am
ready to be corrected; however, until they do, that is what I will have to
believe.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Counterpoint - Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:47 PM EST
  • Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 10:21 PM EST
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 )