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
The Apple v. Samsung II Appeal Briefs - Do Patents on Features That Don't Drive Sales Merit Injunctions? ~pj | 297 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Reverse Apple Logic
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 11:02 AM EST
So, we have Apple (and everyone agrees) state / argue that all
the consumers that were attracted to Siri and any Siri feature
bought an Apple iPhone. Sincr that's irreperable harm to Apple,
then Apple should be able to obtain an injunction on Apple's
iPhone 4S/5.

Maybe that's how capitalism and the free markets work.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Apple v. Samsung II Appeal Briefs - Do Patents on Features That Don't Drive Sales Merit Injunctions? ~pj
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 01:31 PM EST
Well, in the order, the court quoted from
experts, one of whom said that without this
one aspect, Siri wouldn't be able to function.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Apple v. Samsung II Appeal Briefs - Do Patents on Features That Don't Drive Sales Merit Injunctions? ~pj
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 08:36 AM EST
The funniest thing about all of this is, yes, people may have
originally purchased the iphone because of siri, but now it is
widely known as just a gimmick and no one ever uses siri
unless they are out with friends asking it dirty or silly
questions just to gauge her reactions.

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What makes searching in multiple locations ....
Authored by: Charles888 on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 10:17 PM EST
... from a single user interface
REMOTELY novel? I find it alarming
that some people are acknowledging
at least some limited functionality
A patentable and owned by Apple.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Apple v. Samsung II Appeal Briefs - Do Patents on Features That Don't Drive Sales Merit Injunctions? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 12:12 PM EST
Don't forget that Siri was a very popular and useful app that ran on older
hardware before Apple bought it and artificially restricted its use to boost
sales.

[ 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 )