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
PJ, where do you breakdown Samsung's side | 337 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 05:56 AM EST
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 05:57 AM EST
:D

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick Thread Here.
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 05:58 AM EST
;-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Thread Here.
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 06:00 AM EST
:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can people get justice without star attorneys?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 06:24 AM EST
We have here a multi-billion dollar case, and the attorney is told on a whim
that he may not provide written briefs of his arguments. Then Zeller puts out a
comprehensive list of arguments, without dwelling on single points to the
detriments of others demanding equal attention, and basically wraps a very
complete package of relevant objections and supporting precedents, properly
apportioned and prioritized and cross-referenced, into a short time slot.

All of that is quite necessary and relevant to making an informed judgment.

How can anybody in a lower-profile case be expected to even deliver the
information necessary for finding justice? How is this kind of time allotment
which basically means a battle of efficiency and wits of lawyers (rather than of
merit) not leading to justice being bought with money? Your legal points carry
five times the weight if they are organized, prioritized and brought forward by
a well-versed lawyer.

I find that very disturbing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge William Alsup v Judge Lucy Koh - Day v Night - Efficiency v Confusion - Order v Chaos.
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 06:27 AM EST
More haste, less speed.

Judge William Alsup set the Oracle Google trial in such away
that it was pared down to issues that were sufficiently
narrow as to be try-able and limited the number of questions
so that the Jury had a chance of understanding them.

Judge Lucy Koh in the present Apple V Samsung trial... didn't.

I think that once the appeals are though this case will be
very valuable for teaching future Judges how NOT to do
things.

What a train wreck :-(

"Your Honor, with all respect, five minutes is not enough
where someone is asking for two and a half billion dollars
on a whole host of claims."

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pam, please check your email -re: text
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 01:57 PM EST
I was able to help out a little bit with the text. There's a word document
waiting in your inbox.

Josh

[ Reply to This | # ]

Koh vs. Federal Circuit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM EST
> I don't agree with you that the Gorham test requires deception
> at the time of purchasing. I don't think that's what the law is.

Several times during hearing the Rule 50 motion she tells Mr Zeller
not what the law is, but what she thinks it is, setting up the appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Global phone != global distribution
Authored by: mossc on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 02:53 PM EST
As far as the industry goes I don't think the term "global phone"
implies distribution worldwide. It is a term used to define compatibility with
the different worldwide cellular standards and frequencies.

If Verizon was selling a "global" or "world" phone I would
expect it to work with GSM networks overseas once enabled but would not expect
it to be sold in Europe/Asia/Africa etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What if the patents are invalid?
Authored by: Kevin on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 03:11 PM EST
Here's another what if: if any of the three patents the USPTO has -- after the trial -- preliminarily found invalid, contradicting the jury's view that there is no prior art, are ruled invalid with finality before the end of this trial and post-trial time period, then what? The jury allocated damages for all three of those then-invalid patents, and so then what happens, without the math to use to recalculate the damages? It's clearly not fair to have Samsung pay the full amount if three of the utility patents are tossed overboard.

I thought, as a matter of public policy, that a jury's decision was final. If the patents are subsequently found invalid at the USPTO, they remain valid against the particular defendant, in the interest of having a final resolution of the issue at trial. Didn't that happen to Research in Motion, convicted of infringing an invalid patent, and the conviction allowed to stand? (Moreover, if I recall correctly, even the wilfulness part of the conviction was allowed to stand; the fact that the USPTO agreed with RIM's legal advisors did not keep the infringement from being adjudged wilful.

Am I misremembering?

---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speculation or Guesswork
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 12:57 AM EST
Apple cited a case where one criterian that could be used to set aside a damages
award is "speculation or guesswork". Couldn't a good lawyer argue
that is exactly what the jury in this case did?

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, where do you breakdown Samsung's side
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 29 2012 @ 01:45 AM EST
PJ likes to poke holes thru every Apple arguement but doesn't apply the
same effort to tear down Samsung?

BIAS

Never

Fandroids rage on, while rational people think.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )