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

Judge Koh Rules - No Injunction for Apple; No New Trial for Samsung ~ pj | 302 comments | Create New Account

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

Judge Koh Rules - No Injunction for Apple; No New Trial for Samsung ~ pj

Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 06:33 PM EST

You are not unable to show respect for her
position. And if you can't do that, don't
comment at all, please.

Again, it's fine to disagree, but actually
Groklaw has never allowed ad hominem comments,
and even more so when it is a sitting judge.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Koh Rules - No Injunction for Apple; No New Trial for Samsung ~ pj

Authored by: Charles888 on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 09:20 PM EST

I think you are reading too much
into the Korean angle. I don't see
why it has to do with anything. The
way I sees it, it is simply a case
where the judge underestimated the
technical complexity of the case,
and she did not pare it down
initially. So, the jury ended up
with very complex facts, and overly
complex introductions.

I think she only realized the
problem by the end of the case, but
it was too late by then, and has
been trying to tiptoe around the
mines ever since (not successfully,
I might add).

[ 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 )