|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 10:23 AM EST |
Actually, she was more fair than the Federal Circuit.
She didn't order a preliminary injunction, for
example, and on appeal, the Federal Circuit
said she should take another look, and it was only
then that she did it.
Unfortunately, all patent appeals go to that one
court of appeals, and it's the court the US Supreme
Court continues to have to overrule.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST |
| "the fix was in" . . . that's unlikely with any of these cases, even MS vs
Novelle.
But the situation maybe worse than a payoff. A judge may have
a deep seated bias against one side or the other.
And there's no way to
challenge that.
Certain decisions might be knocked down or a case reversed
on appeal.
But the bias factor can't be raised. How could it?
Likely the
judge is unaware.
This potential bias is probably more insidious then any
paying off. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 04:34 PM EST |
I've begun to wonder if the judge is leaning toward
Apple so as to not be accused of being biased in favor
of a Korean company.
Keep in mind that there are those among us who understand
the tech side of things, and those that have been eagerly
following the multiple litigations that Apple has been
involved in world-wide.
Neither the tech, nor the other court cases may make any
difference to this judge and this judge might not even
be aware of them.
So with this judges potentially limited view, this judge
might be struggling to NOT appear biased toward Samsung.
If that is this judges goal and desire, I would say
"extremely well done". They definitely do NOT appear
to be biased in any way in favor of Samsung.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
