Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST |
2nd paragraph following:
A. The Court Can And Should Interpret The Damages Verdicts And Correct Errors
split the hair might thin > split the hair mighty thin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 07:55 AM EST |
Original:
asking you to say *they* are right, and you sit there not knowing what some of
what they are saying is even talking about.
Better:
asking you to say *they* are right, and you sit there not understanding what
they are even talking about. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 07:59 AM EST |
Original:
asking you to say *they* are right, and you sit there not knowing what some of
what they are saying is even talking about.
Better:
asking you to say *they* are right, and you sit there not understanding what
they are even talking about. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 09:43 AM EST |
See comment of that same title, far below [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 10:23 AM EST |
The final highlight, for now, is that Samsung has filed a motion to compel Apple
to show it's settlement agreement terms with HTC[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 12:33 PM EST |
Is the UK trial referred to the same one in which the judge's reprimand for
Apple's website post included a notation that it was not a trial over a
"patent"? There is a lot of stuff going on so I could be confused,
but I recall the UK judge making a point that the trial was about a
"registered design".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 09:14 PM EST |
Exhibit links are broken [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 01:48 AM EST |
Not an error per say, but pretty hard to read:
ApplevSamsung-2126Ex13.pdf, one of the exhibits that Apple would prefer
the court to block, is a deposition earlier this month of Marylee Robinson, who
opines as an expert for Apple, kind of stepping into the shoes of Terry Musika,
who became ill after the trial verdict and who worked, she says, with her, that
people buy Samsung tablets to get the patented features allegedly infringed,
causing Apple harm.
Phew!
Might be worth splitting it
up, and separating clauses some more:
ApplevSamsung-2126Ex13.pdf, one of the exhibits that Apple would prefer
the court to block, is a deposition earlier this month of Marylee Robinson. She
opines as an expert for Apple (kind of stepping into the shoes of Terry Musika,
who became ill after the trial verdict and who worked, she says, with her) that
people buy Samsung tablets to get the patented features allegedly infringed,
causing Apple harm. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|