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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
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 | # ]

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 )