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
Why should ANY patent warrant injunctive relief? | 297 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Irreparable harm
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 02:45 AM EST
Going back to selling devices, my significant other was wondering if I wanted
the iPad 4. It looks pretty, but my Xoom does everything that the iPad4 does,

so why buy the iPad?

Patents or no patents, desirable features on one mobile device will be
replicated on other devices, once somebody's itch needs scratching.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The reason I selected my phone certainly isn't a feature Apple can provide
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 03:52 AM EST

After all - when my primary purpose is to have full control over the software on my phone:

    proprietary phones simply don't offer that

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why should ANY patent warrant injunctive relief?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 07:04 AM EST
"an invention that allows a mobile phone to make mobile
phone calls would warrant injunctive relief"

Would it?

By that argument, any patent troll - I'm sorry, non-practicing entity - could
wave a handful of core technology patents at Apple and shut them down.

Injunctive relief should be entirely dependent on the harm (or lack of it) to
the plaintiff, not the significance of the claimed patent to their product.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Irreparable harm
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 03:43 PM EST
I would think it's obvious that Apple is
arguing they should have a monopoly when
they say that. If
other good phones are sold on the market,
it will interfere with their campaign to
implant the idea that "smartphone = iPhone"
or "tablet = iPad" in the market, and
network effects will make their
competitors' devices more attractive (as
more software is written for them, users
sign up for their services, users become
accustomed to their interfaces, etc).
Money can't fix this problem; in order for
Apple to win, everyone else has to lose.

[ 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 )