|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Not possible - Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 03:21 PM EST
- Not possible - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 03:48 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 03:58 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:19 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:27 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 06:53 PM EST
- Not possible - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST
- Not possible - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:24 PM EST
- I'm still puzzled - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 09:47 PM EST
|
|
|
|