|
|
|
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 07:19 PM EST |
While I agree with what you wrote above, I am still unsure that since Apple is
apparently trying to avoid being 'caught' suing others over two 'similar' design
patents (well they already did, didn't they?) that if the '087 design is
invalidated then the 'similar' '677 design should, logically, be subject to
exactly the same invalidation.
Thus, part of what Apple seeks to exclude is disingenuous (much like their
initial efforts to divert the effectiveness of their 'apology' on their UK
website, as required by the EU Community Court, as upheld by the Appeals
Court.)
Likewise, their wording of the results of a Survey re the Hogan/Seagate voir
dire omission, failed miserably to mitigate the possibility that a Spouse, or
significant other, of a litigation team member knew thereof prior to the jury
verdict. Furthermore, I might speculate that external 'jury selection experts'
may have known, and kept to themselves (since Hogan was more likely to be
anti-Samsung) more than the litigation team. Also, I might speculate that Apple
has/had, if Hogan uses/used an iDevice for emails, facilities to search content
of said emails for any mention of litigation.
Isn't speculation fun?
---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 09:27 PM EST |
In other words, at any time Apple chooses, at their sole discretion Apple can
let the original patent lapse for lack of payment of maintenance fees (at their
sole option) and thus regain the full term of the pile-on patent.
I'd say the weasel in THOSE words isn't even TRYING to look like an honest
ferret.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 10:54 PM EST |
Here's the problem that I see. If the two
are pretty much the same thing, except for
the color black, if '087 is invalidated, one
would assume '677 would be too.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
