|
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 04:30 AM EST |
Being caught out for unfairly accusing Samsung of incompetence to weaken their
chance of a fair trial, weaselling out with the terminal disclaimer by saying
it's all null and void once the judge is looking the other way and having two
patents for the same thing and demanding double damages might not appear more
reasonable to the judge.
A grumpy curmudgeon I know calls this having points taken away from them under
duress and not giving up on points.
Mind you, he's a miserable old... well, never you mind what he is!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 08:16 AM EST |
Even if they are trying to drop things they "don't think
they'll win", it's a significant cost here.
"our earlier claims were misleading/incorrect, and we kinda
stretched the truth" (on multiple issues) is not going to win
brownie points with the judge.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 10:31 AM EST |
As I am guessing you have followed this website longer,
perhaps you could explain the following to me-
Why does it start by talking about motions for summary
judgment (Rule 56)? These are Rule 50 (JMOL)motions.
Why does the site characterize these routine filings as
evidence of nervousness? This is all routine post-litigation
action. The bigger the stakes (and the larger the law
firms), the more the filings.
Moreover, the characterization of these filings has always
been off. Samsung will, of course, be arguing substantive
issues (the jury got it wrong because...). Apple, of course,
will be arguing procedural matters (we won, and we don't
need to argue because...). This is all normal.
Why is a citation to a case decided by the Fed. Cir.
"distinguished" by a judge on the panel? You start to get
into crazy territory there.
There are some really interesting issues here, being fought
over by some legal heavyweights. But the most likely outcome
is, and always has been, that this will be continued on
appeal. Doesn't mean that it's not possible that Samsung can
win a JMOL. Just very unlikely. Not sure how all these
strange characterization help.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|