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
WSJ interview with Eric Schmidt | 115 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Dotcom cleared to sue Govt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:03 PM EST
Chief high court judge Helen Winkelmann said the GCSB would have to "confirm all entities" to which it gave information sourced through its illegal interception of Dotcom's communications.
...
The police were ordered to provide evidence from a senior New Zealand officer in the US who told an internal publication he "monitored" the raid from FBI headquarters.
NZ Herald

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My 9th anniversary here.
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:10 PM EST
I know it's bad form to reply to myself, but I just noticed I became a member
here 9 years ago today. Yikes! Who would have thought/known the need for this
would still exist? Much thanks to pj for all the work along the way! Thanks for
allowing me the opperknockity to tune along! :D!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I had assumed that senior-level employees of a $50B company would know right from wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:56 PM EST
After 18 months in court, a nine-person jury found Best Buy liable for misappropriation of TechForward’s trade secrets and breach of contract, and returned a verdict of $22 million in favor of TechForward.

[...]

Best Buy had:

  • Internal emails that acknowledged that it would “...be a couple of years before we [Best Buy] have a model that is up and running…” and “...I’m not convinced we’d be able to organically duplicate Tech Forward’s model in a reasonable period of time…” so they “…wanted an opportunity to peek under the hood a little bit at their [Tech Forward’s] modeling…”  
     
  • The models which Best Buy did build internally were virtually identical to the models that Techforward had provided them.  And there were internal Best Buy emails asking Best Buy employees to “…remove the Techforward reference in the file names…”  
     
  • While Best Buy promised to build a “brick wall” to protect the information that Techforward provided them, they acknowledged that they did not do so. And in fact, the same people that reviewed Techforward’s model were the ones who built Best Buy’s model.  
     
  • My favorite email is one from a Best Buy employee (I am using all my willpower to not put his name here) who argued in favor of running the program internally, saying that “I don’t think we should be making this company [Techforward] rich…” 
Josh Kopelman, Redeye VC

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FTC Files Amicus Brief over SEPs - Says injunctions bad
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 08:54 PM EST
Link

The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals explaining that it is ordinarily inappropriate for a court to issue an injunction barring the sale of products incorporating standardized, patented technology when the patent holder has previously committed to license the patent on fair and reasonable terms.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

#DroidRage fail
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 12:05 AM EST
CNET amongst others has a story about Microsofts recent marketing failure.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

WSJ interview with Eric Schmidt
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 01:37 AM EST
Google's CEO can't explain Apple's strategy of suing Google's partners rather
than suing Google itself.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323717004578159481472653460-
lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html

[ 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 )