Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Coverage from the Verge... | 119 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Coverage from the Verge...

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 09:33 PM EST

Actually it meanms absolutely nothing.
If she had said something during the hearing like "How can you defend
someone lying during voir dire?" or "How can you attack one of the
jurors?" you would know.

Even if she outright throws out the verdict, she still has to deal with these
other issues.Maybe she just decided she that she is ... well "fully
briefed".

Keep in mind that the CAFC and the SCOTUS spend a lot time, effort, blood, bone
and sinew to create IP case law. They don't want some smuck off the street just
waltzing in and upsetting the apple cart with his wacko theories. They will find
a way to admit those statements because they want to.
Who knows Samsung may amend their filings claiming a new precedent, that they
did not infronge based on the fact that their stuff runs on a different
processor-- call it the Hogan precedent. If the CAFC see's that I'm sure they
will overturn the verdict in a New York minute.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Coverage from the Verge... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 09:34 PM EST

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 )