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
Different case | 52 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Different case
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 02:33 PM EST
This one's the Apple v Samsung, Hogan's Verdict case, so what we're looking at now is Apple's request for a permanent injuction against various Samsung products.

Apple says that use by others of these particular patents hurts their brand so badly, no amount of money could ever make amends, therefore the Samsung products involved must be totally and permanently excluded from the US market.

On the other tongue, they've licensed those same patents for HTC's use in the US market.

So, it may be that they are right - it doesn't matter what the numeric value of 'licensing_fee' is;

if licensing_fee:
   injunction_required=False

I doubt that's the way Apple wants to couch the issue before the court, though.

If Magistrate Judge Grewal were to announce that no injuction was forthcoming, but he'd established a royalty rate instead, that would produce some very interesting screams of discontent... but neither side has proposed it as a remedy, so I don't think we'll see that.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm still puzzled
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 02:37 PM EST
I think the analysis in the original post is largely
correct. This petty squabbling is more indicative of the
lack of trust and comity between the attorneys than any
substantive dispute. Boiled down, Sammy asked for the
document. Apple replied, sure, but with redactions X and Y.
Sammy came back and said, okay- you can have those
redactions, but we're not withdrawing our motion, because we
need to see what the document looks like with those
redactions in case you're pulling some shennaningans (like
an overly expansive reading of consideration). Apple then
said, well your motion is moot, because we're giving you
what you asked for.

It's this kind of pettiness that gives lawyers a bad name,
and probably could have been avoided with a phone call.

[ 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 )