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
What's not here... | 152 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Can he be charged ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:03 PM EST
Criminally or for the cost of a new trial???

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:12 PM EST
,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung works in another little dig at Apple...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:43 PM EST

Apple argues (Opp. 1-2) that Samsung waived its juror bias argument by failing to make it sooner, but Samsung could not reasonably have ascertained Mr. Hogan’s dishonesty before the jury’s verdicts. As Samsung has made clear and Apple cannot dispute, Mr. Hogan made public statements after the verdicts that so clearly favored Apple that the press speculated about their possible financial ties.

Of all the speculations made by the press, Samsung chose to quote this one. I wonder if they really think Apple bought the juror? ...or is it just a dig at them to rattle them? Are we going to see Apple addressing this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

the record for sell outs
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:47 PM EST
While Apple takes days to sell out iphones..Google took just
under 15 minutes ot sell out Nexus phones and Nexus tablets..

Hmm, Apple better hope those HTC patents you licensed are
valid..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rectangles with rounded corners
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:59 PM EST

This is the big one we all discussed. Samsung had already established via the appeal's court that functional elements had to be factored out. We had a blog from some legal analyst discussing this, who had been following the case, and had noted in the end this had been at some point dropped from the jury instructions. There was must speculation on how it got dropped, because it had already been established on record.

Second, Apple is wrong that the jury need not “factor out functional elements because that is a legal issue for the Court.” Opp. 6. It is precisely because “factoring out functional elements” is a legal requirement that the Court must instruct the jury to do so before deciding infringement, yet no such instruction was given. Nor is functionality found only where “overall designs” are “dictated by function” (id.); functional elements always must be “factored out” as part of the infringement analysis. Richardson v. Stanley Works, 597 F.3d 1288, 1292-93 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Note that though that paragraph seems to be all about Apple, it speaks directly to the judge about her own actions, or lack thereof actually, because she failed to instruct the jury on the need to factor out functionality. Actually, if I recall, she did make a stab at it with a partial explanation with the effect of even further trivializing functionality by its incompleteness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:03 PM EST
:-D

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:04 PM EST
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:07 PM EST
:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think the “de facto technical expert” charge will be hard to counter.
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:17 PM EST
Not sure about the other stuff yet, Its going to depend of what Apple is forced
to disclose.

Interesting times.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

KSR v Teleflex cited again
Authored by: scav on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 05:45 AM EST
That decision is getting to be quite useful.

---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's not here...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:33 AM EST
I think that one thing that's notable about this filing is that Samsung isn't
having to argue for a hearing. Judge Koh already stated that she would hold a
hearing, and that frees up Samsung to talk about what needs to be discussed at
the hearing, not spending pages trying to justify the hearing in the first
place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Apple appeal a mistrial ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:20 PM EST
If Koh decides that there is enough evidence to require declaring a mistrial and
ordering a new one, is it possible for Apple to appeal against that order?

[ 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 )