|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 08:11 PM EST |
well the patents apple is trying to use for the bans, 3 of them are currently
seen as invalid which is pending and other 3 could be as well so doubt appeals
judge will even deal with this til that is all settled[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 08:36 PM EST |
and we've talked a lot about the CAFC, but now we'll get to follow a case there.
It's sure to be fascinating, in a "who can eat the most maggots" kind
of way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hmmm... - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 03:35 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 21 2012 @ 02:52 AM EST |
Judge Koh's original Nexus ban was struck down by the FC on
the basis that the patents in question failed to form a
"causal nexus" for purchasing decisions.
Koh's denial of a permanent injunction is using *their*
rules. It even uses the same words.
It would be very odd for the same FC to reverse direction on
their own rules, so I think Apple is out of luck on this
one.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: wayne1932 on Friday, December 21 2012 @ 09:24 AM EST |
It's called "job security" If no software patents, they are out of a
job. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
