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
Incorrect patent number | 234 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:12 PM EST
For any mistake you find in the original post. Use a title
like tytle->title

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple not winning any PR wars
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:12 PM EST
Apple just looks like a Patent troll with all these lawsuits. Even with first
trial all apple did was fuel a massive buying spree by customers getting the
galaxy S3.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:16 PM EST
Please include a (clickable) link for the newspick, so it can
be found after it scrolls off the main page

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:20 PM EST
No mention of THIS Apple vs Samsung trial is allowed here.
mentions of the OTHER Apple vs Samsung trial are allowed
though. Just make it clear that you're referring to the OTHER
trial, you know, the one with the $1b judgement and that
Hogan juror.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:22 PM EST
Post here your transcriptions of the Comes vs Microsoft
documents. Use HTML markup, but post in plain text mode so
it's effortless for Mark and PJ to copy it and paste it on
the site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Tries to Attack Android Jelly Bean Directly in ApplevSamsungII
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:30 PM EST
If it's going to be in the same judge's court, then it means
that we may see the same treatment that we saw in the
previous trial, were Apple was given plenty of slack, but
Samsung, not so much? Will the judge instead wise up to
Apple's litigation strategy? Who knows... I'll grab the
popcorn through.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Incorrect patent number
Authored by: Valerion on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:34 PM EST
Ars Technica has the patent number incorrect in the article, but the link is correct. The patent is D670,286 and here's the link to the USPTO page for it. In order to view the images, you will need a Quictime plugin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Tries to Attack Android Jelly Bean Directly in ApplevSamsungII
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:42 PM EST
Doesn't Apple need to sue Google directly over Android?

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naming conventions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:57 PM EST
So this one, the "now with added Android" trial, could be called
"the '630 case", and the other one - the "Hogan's Heros"
trial - could be called "the '846 case"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

USPTO awards Apple design patent on rounded corner rectangles
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 03:30 PM EST
The new one, D607,286 is not to be confused
with the old one, D504,889.

See arstechnica.

I would have put this under OT but I suspect
Apple will attempt to morph this case to use
this new bogus patent.



---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Those Who Live In Glass Houses
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 04:04 PM EST
Hey Apple, while you are no doubt busy with your patent nuclear war, I just wanted to take a moment to remind you about a saying about those who live in glass houses.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rounded Rectangles
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 04:55 PM EST
Now that Ars is reporting that they've gotten a new rounded rectangle design
patent, I thought I'd throw out this old bit of folklore:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt

[ Reply to This | # ]

Your move Google.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 05:11 PM EST
Interesting that Samsung so strongly oppose adding android
to the suit. Whilst they are quite dependent on Google with
their successful products currently, I don't think they like
being beholden to a third party for one of their core
businesses and might be happy to throw android under a bus
if one of their in-house solutions were mature enough.

Given a few more years working on their in house stuff and
app platform, they might be happy to see android hit legal
trouble, as it would take their competitors out of the
market and lead them to clean up with total control over
their ecosystem.

I'd like to see Google go heavily on the offensive now, and
directly target Apple's patents and products.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Tries to Attack Android Jelly Bean Directly in ApplevSamsungII
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 06:26 PM EST
If you round the corners enough, you end up with a circle.
How much "rounding" does Apple "own"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

8,000 pages!!?? That would take 2 weeks to read, assuming 500 pages/ day!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 08:16 PM EST
Methinks this could be condensed, by taking each of the 37 claims,
showing what part of any one of the 19 devices accused is supposed to
infringe, then showing that the other 18 do exactly the same thing.

What ever happened to "Judicial Economy"? This looks more like
burying
in a blizzard of dead trees that noone except a computer can track
properly!

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | # ]

"More rounded corners. Believe it or not."
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 08:58 PM EST
but will they come with screens to display anything? :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

FTP?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 11:07 PM EST
"The log in and password information for the FTP site was then emailed to
Samsung’s counsel"

FTP? I sure hope the counsel involved on both sides are all aware that FTP is
an entirely unsecured protocol.

Don't recall setting up a server with any FTP service for any purpose in well
over a decade.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Tries to Attack Android Jelly Bean Directly in ApplevSamsungII
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 12:57 AM EST
Wait, it what sense does Samsung make, use, offer for sale, or sell JB? Copy,
yes, build, yes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple should have got it right first time
Authored by: indyandy on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 01:08 AM EST
From Apple's filing quoted above:
10. In the process of uploading the Word files to the proper shared network folder, downloading the files in Word, renaming and assigning exhibit numbers to the files, converting the files to PDF and finally uploading them to the FTP site, miscommunication among the team members lead to the omission and mislabeling of certain claim charts from the FTP site. Additional details of these errors will are provided in the paragraphs below.

(my emphasis)

By Apple's own logic they "could have" and "should have" got the documents right first time. Surely they waived their right to make changes now by getting it wrong in the first place and then waiting an inordinate amount of time before trying to correct their error? Remember how Mr Quinn was reduced to asking "What's the point" of holding the trial when faced by Judge Koh's ruling of July 29 2012 (Filing 1456)"

[Page 2]

11-19

Sustained. Pursuant to Judge Grewal’s Order, theories of invalidity based on the evidence and references in slides 11-19 were not timely disclosed in Samsung’s invalidity/non-infringement contentions and therefore are excluded.

21-22

Sustained. The images of, and testimony regarding, the Sony style designs in the slides are excluded because of their untimely disclosure pursuant to Judge Grewal’s Order.

(my emphasis)

Sauce for the goose perhaps?

[ 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 )