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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Corrections Thread | 81 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thoroughness versus brevity...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:08 PM EST
I wonder why there should be any limits on the amount of evidence that can be
presented, the verbosity of the arguments, or the number of patents that each
party is accusing the other of violating. I read in one of Florian's posts, that
Apple has 100s of multi-touch patents, so it is surprising that Samsung is
alleged to have violated only 3 of them. And he further said that Apple has
1000s of patents related to smartphones, so again I feel atleast Samsung should
be violating a few dozens.

Why trim the number of patents to be examined for potential violation? Why set
limits on the arguments? When billions are at stake, and companies have invested
<sarcasm; lots of money, effort and research into building thousands of
patent-worthy innovations ;sarcasm> why should courts get to set arbitrary
limits on these trials?

Should not these trials be as thorough and complete as possible, so that justice
"is seen" to be done? Why this haste?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:15 PM EST
Changes in Title Block if possible.
"Eror" -> "Error"

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:17 PM EST
Keep away from being relevant!

Nothing allowed on late night infomercials that concern
slicing and dicing, either.....

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:18 PM EST
URL, please?

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Goes Here
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:20 PM EST
For those steadfast volunteers who keep moving forward. Will
it be done before Microsoft circles the drain?

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The alternative is worse.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 06:06 PM EST
There are legitimately cases where you could make hundreds,
possibly thousands, of independent but related arguments.
Patent cases are great examples. Patent portfolios are
large. If you could make as many claims as you wanted, and
put forward as many theories of infringement as you wanted,
a business dispute could run to the thousands of pages.
They infringed this patent in this way. Also this other
very close but slightly different way. This thing over here
could be argued to be sort of related to one of the claims
of this patent over here. And so on. Not only is this
burdensome to respond to, it's incredibly burdensome on the
court. Just to rule on it all, let alone hear arguments.

The time of the courts is a valuable, finite, and scarce
resource. Allowing parties to consume "as much as they
want" if they want deprives other potential litigants,
potentially with larger or more valid claims, from having
courts hear them. And that's not exactly in the interest of
justice either.

I suppose you could make the argument "have more courts and
more judges," but like water finding it's own level, that
just makes the reasonable limit larger - it doesn't
eliminate the need for some limitations on a party's ability
to request to be heard on every single remotely relevant
point.

Page limits and other limitations are the courts answers,
and they tend most often to be thrown at parties (such as
the parties to this case) who will simply not shut up
otherwise. Oh, so you've been damaged? Great. Put your
very best arguments front and center, and be heard on them.
If you can't prove your point on those, you're not getting
another chance with your second best arguments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Problems with Patent Law
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:58 AM EST

Yes, Patent Law is an incredible mess. It impacts everything, not just
software, though software may be more visible. The problems seem to
break down into these categories:

1) Inadaquete Prior Art consideration by the USPTO

2) Inadaquete technical knowledge by examiners

3) Overloaded Patent Office

4) Inability to fix mistakes quickly and easily

5) Patents written in impossible to understand manner

6) Regulatory bias towards patentability

Add the six together, and you have an unholy mess. I spent a lot of time
working with patents. When I started I had tons of respect for the regulatory
process of invention. Now I have none.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

I didn't know this was hosted at Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 02:52 AM EST
I didn't know this was hosted at Groklaw. Could a link be added on the main
page, I believe there many more entries will be added.

[ 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 )