|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 | # ]