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
Giving you the benefit of doubt - a few points | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
There's a point where we'll have to agree to disagree - with a potential for change
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:28 PM EST

Caveat: It's altogether highly probably - like 99% or higher - that I missed something in the exchange with regards the Court handling.

Remember, it was Apple that wanted SEP rates set (no injunctive relief).
Absolutely! We're all agreed on that point. Apple wanted the Court to set the SEP rates instead of entering good faith negotiations. Side note: you didn't indicate whether or not you view this as a normal tactic or something novel! I certainly hope it's a novel tactic Apple used.
The brilliant tactic close to trial by QE in this case was that they, a week prior to trail, filed a motion to have Apple commit to the court-ordered rates.
Also agreed! Although in my humble opinion un-necessary. Why un-necessary? Because as a non-Legal my understanding of the Legal system is that a Court ruling is Official. You obey the ruling or you risk - at the very least - spending time in jail on Contempt Of Court charges until you do obey. Your only possibility is to appeal the decision.
Apple responded by saying sure, but if they were "too high" (over a $1 per unit), they they'd contest the rates.
This is the part that - for quite a few of us - showed Apple's true intent. Deliberately disobey a Court Ruling because they don't like it?

That is what has formed the opinion of many of us where we'll just have to agree to disagree that my opinion does not match yours on the meaning of what happened.

The exception - the part with the greater then 99% probability that could alter my opinion - is this:

    Did such a request to have Apple honor the decision preclude Apple filing an Appeal?
I can see if Apple would have been precluded filing an Appeal how they might not have liked that. But if they could still Appeal and contest the decision on the FRAND rates - then Apple really has no excuse for not explicitly agreeing to that which is already implicitly understood with regards normal Court proceedings.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Giving you the benefit of doubt - a few points
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 02:19 PM EST
You are mistaken. It was partly with prejudice
and partly without. So it's not back to square
one at all.

You are also violating our comments policy. Please
read it.

You certainly make a lot of factual errors for
someone claiming to be a litigator. I hope you
perform better in your alleged line of work.

[ 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 )