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
Twisted response | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
In addition
Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:28 PM EST
Samsung has not denied that Apple got their information from odd shaped men
found wandering near Roswell.

Under some circumstances negative evidence is useful and allows one to reach
sensible conclusions, more often it provides evidence that stupidity is far too
common.

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Twisted response
Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:39 PM EST
It does smell a bit, doesn't it? If they have
nothing to hide, why wriggle? I know it is not
legal tradition to give your opponent anything
without a fight, but this is stretching it.
If they didn't know, it would be rather stupid
in this situation not to just say so. Apple's
current course of action makes them look shifty.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If it doesn't add up, challenge your assumptions..like Apple actually wants to win...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 08:06 PM EST
That is, I think, and I think PJ thinks, that Apple is doing what it's doing for

ulterior motives....that is the real point of this is to destroy Android and
make way for A company based in Redmond to enter the market for non-
desktop computing.

Under this lense, the strategy of making the litigation as expensive as
possible for your opponent, including especially tying up valuable top
management attention at Samsung and Google, at all costs, makes sense.

However, as others note, Apple may have taken this strategy a bit too far
here, turning a possible victory into a highly probable defeat. Of course,
that ensures that Apple can appeal, prolonging the foolishness, whereas if
they win a small victory, Samsung can decide its cheaper and better to
move on....ending the nonsense.

(Christenson)
P.S. I invite contradictory or confirming evidence, since I am basing all of
this on circumstantial evidence, which isn't terribly reliable.

[ 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 )