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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Just pointing out.... | 360 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Just pointing out....
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:38 PM EST
Then why the the English Judges say this?

"(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the
10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law."

It sounds to me by using "is" that part of the German decision
"is" still in force. The sentence immediately before uses the past
tense to refer to the part of the case about the community design.

"(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held
that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was
for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether
there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons
given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have
been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published."

---
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 | 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 )