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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Apple should file for a mistrial | 222 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You need to reconsider "Just"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:51 PM EST
A retrial is needed in a court not in Apple's back yard with people that know
patent law and won't skim through instructions to get outta there. Apple does
deserve fail trial but SO does Samsung, and holding a trail in apples backyard
with an Apple home town jury who for sure is indirectly employed cause apple or
is related to someone that is clearly tipping trial in their favor. Its Like a
murder trial where the jury is made up of the family of the victim.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Another way out
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 11:10 PM EST
There were counterclaims of Apple infringing Samsung patents.
The judge could declare the patents of each party to be of
equal value, and send them both to bed without any supper.
Posner did that in slightly more judicial language.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple should file for a mistrial
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 01:38 AM EST
Why not? It's only being fair to Apple.

Let's even have it in the same venue, same judge!

And let's not rush. New jury, not rushing through voir dire.

And let's schedule it late next year, when the judge's calendar is open.

There is no rush, why even Samsung backed off of injunction requests in Europe!

Samsung is saying, hey, let's compete with each other in the marketplace, not in court!

So, all I am saying, is, let Apple have the courts actually review the claims on their merits!

Proper adjudication, as it were.

<g>

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You need to reconsider "Just"
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 09:48 AM EST
"They did not however instruct the Jury to do the ridiculous
things they did ..."

That we know of ;)

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So the jury decides that Samsung
Authored by: albert on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 11:31 AM EST
infringed on an _invalid_ patent, (and were instructed _not_ to rule on the
patents validity). The suit couldn't have been brought with a _invalid_ patent.
No new trial is warranted.

"Your Honor, we want a new trial, to prove Samsung infringed on our invalid
patent"

The appeal will handle it.

[ 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 )