Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

More, Grewell Please, ... maybe later! | 128 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

More, Grewell Please, ... maybe later!

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 12:31 PM EST

Of course, a troll.

No, making what I assumed was an obvious point. Do you know
how Samsung would've won this motion? If it had been
granted. It takes a certain perspective to translate this
order into a win for Samsung.

Samsung wanted something, and they didn't get it. Ergo, they
lost. Apple gets to fight discovery under a less liberal
system, and provided that the Japanese tribunal provides any
reasoning for not allowing it other than "we don't allow any
discovery, ever" a renewed motion for discovery here might
not be looked upon very favorably. Moreover, (to use the old
maxim) justice delayed is justice denied, and to the extent
that Apple is buying time, they are winning in that aspect
as well (should the Japanese tribunal rule on other issues
prior to this Court ruling on discovery issues, it becomes
moot, not to mention the possibility of settlement).

But yes, they can re-ask. I have just never seen a motion
denied without prejudice characterized as a "win win"
before.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

More, Grewell Please, ... maybe later! - Authored by: PJ on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 01:17 PM EST
- More, Grewell Please, ... maybe later! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 02:25 PM EST
  - *Parties do not file motions hoping to have them denied.* - Authored by: webster on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 02:42 PM EST
    - *Parties do not file motions hoping to have them denied.* - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 02:57 PM EST
      - *Parties do not file motions hoping to have them denied.* - Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 03:35 PM EST
        *Parties do not file motions hoping to have them denied.* - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 10:09 AM EST
  - More, Grewell Please, ... maybe later! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 11:33 AM EST
More, Grewell Please, ... maybe later! - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 03:46 PM EST

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 )