|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:14 PM EST |
I think you partly miss the point I.e. the verdict was so one
sided in Apple favour that the press was rightful to speculate
about Hogan been in Apple pocket.... A mean... even I was
shocked at the verdict! The jury totally invalidated Samsung
and I mean totally invalidated Samsung!
- C[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 05:23 PM EST |
They also seem to have covered the bases accurately, I.e. all of the things
they mention were widely reported.
Reminds me of some of Novell's filings against SCO/Caldera, where you
could literally see the scorn dripping off the pages.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 09:44 PM EST |
Ok I've found the passage you mention, but I can't find the citation for the
article that they mention. Anyone know what it is?
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 01:40 AM EST |
Samsung mentions the press reports about financial ties because they are
what prompted Samsung to order the bankruptcy file that showed the
Seagate litigation. So this is in response to Apple's arguments that
Samsung knew or should have known about the Seagate case before the
verdict. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 08:18 AM EST |
It also provides evidence that independant observers saw the verdict as biased
creating at least "the appearance of impropriety".
---
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 | # ]
|
|
