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
benefits of awareness and jurisdictional limits | 209 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
UK precedent - alternate approaches
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:18 AM EST
Based on possible responses to "This evidence, a judgment issued by the
England and Wales Court of Appeal..........
could not possibly be relevant ....... because it was not admitted at
trial."

To make a somewhat silly, hopefully funny, paraphrase:

A Practical approach
Samsung: We just discovered that there's evidence that our building is on fire
and we'd like a quick JMOL that we should go outside.

A Typical approach
Apple: That evidence wasn't introduced soon enough so it's irrelevant.

A "We can only hope for" approach
Court, to Apple: Well there's evidence and there's procedure. Given the
evidence, I say it's relevant and compelling, and I'm leaving. If you want to
follow procedure, feel free to stay and toast your marshmallows.

Praxis

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's the clarity that matters methinks
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:18 AM EST
It's not just the cases heard in the UK. It's the logic and clarity of the
judgements which were delivered in plain, unambiguous English. I seem to recall
that there was also reference to abundant prior art.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

UK precedent
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:16 AM EST

Is this case only about what Samsung sells in the USA? Or are damages based on world-wide sales? I took that there could be a rationalization behind introducing the UK precedent that it is needed to reduce damages at least for phones sold in the UK market. (But maybe I am completely wrong, and the trial is only about what happens or is sold in the USA.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

benefits of awareness and jurisdictional limits
Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM EST
People aren't perfect, the laws that people write aren't perfect, and the courts
that weigh the laws aren't perfect. That isn't to say that they need to be
thrown out, but we need every mechanism that we can have to both minimize the
chance of error as well as to limit the scope of a potential error. An EU
ruling would have no legal weight in this court, just as it would be wrong for
this court to have any legal legal impact on an EU court (yes, I know about that
MS/Moto ruling). Truly boneheaded legal conclusions are rare, but, when they
happen, I am glad that their immediate damage radius is limited.

Then again, especially since the US legal system grew from European origins,
reading the EU court ruling could help this court a lot. With any complicated
problem, added perspectives can be of tremendous help when sorting through the
details. Even where we differ, those differences could just as easily firm up
our minds (when we disagree with a position's basis) or convince us that we need
to rethink our stance. The EU ruling is very relevant given the issues, our
legal systems have some common ground, but it is still a different court with
some differences in the approach.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here's an example of the Supreme Court looking to the English courts.
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 12:07 PM EST
From the Supreme Court, Parker v. Flook:
In reviewing earlier cases applying the rule that a scientific principle cannot be patented, the Court placed particular emphasis on the English case of Neilson v. Harford, Web. Pat. Cases 295, 371 (1844), which involved the circulation of heated air in a furnace system to increase its efficiency.

The English court rejected the argument that the patent merely covered the principle that furnace temperature could be increased by injecting hot air, instead of cold into the furnace. That court's explanation of its decision was relied on by this Court in Morse:

"`It is very difficult to distinguish it [the Neilson patent] from the specification of a patent for a principle, and this at first created in the minds of the court much difficulty; but after full consideration, we think that the plaintiff does not merely claim a principle, but a machine, embodying a principle, and a very valuable one.

We think the case must be considered as if the principle being well known, the plaintiff had first invented a mode of applying it . . . .'"
I note that they paid attention to the arguments rather than just accepting the opinion at face value.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

UK precedent
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 02:03 PM EST
Not a lawyer but as I understand it a US court gives no weight to the decision
of a UK court but is free to give weight to the argument and logic of the court
if it thinks it is appropriate. This makes sense, if a strong argument is made,
it is a strong argument, and the fact it is expressed by a foreign court is
irrelevant. Obviously the context is different and the judge must interpret the
argument in the US contaxt.

I expect that some US newspapers/right wing politicians will flame any judge who
mentions a foreign court in the same way anything european gets distorted and
reported here in the UK. The judge would be wise to read and think about the UK
judgement but be careful what he says about it.

[ 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 )