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
There's a point where we'll have to agree to disagree - with a potential for change | 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 @ 03:15 PM EST
"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."

You ask some great questions. The brief answer is that I
don't know. I'd have to look back at the entire case and
review how it developed to that point, but if I was to
hazard a guess, it would be because of the declaratory
action and the procedural posture of the case- in other
words, Apple had petitioned the court for relief.

If you proactively ask the court for relief, then it's
really hard to tell the court, meh, I really need this
relief, but it might just be an advisory opinion.

Personally, I will reiterate that this was some great trial
strategy by QE, and (depending on other developments) poor
trial strategy by Apple.

Which is why, as a matter of litigation, a lot of this is
really fascinating. But in the long run, my opinion still
remains the same; there will be a lot of sturm und drang,
and then they will settle. Just like Apple and Nokia before
them. Because corporations hate uncertainty, and litigation
breeds it. This is about positioning prior to settlement.

But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe there will be some knockout
blow delivered by one party or the other.

[ 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 )