|
Authored by: achurch on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 11:09 PM EST |
Please summarize the correction in the title of your post, e.g. "Misteak
--> Mistake".
Also remember that we strive for accuracy in
transcription, so if there's an error in the PDF, it should stay in the
transcription as well. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: achurch on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 11:13 PM EST |
For discussion of those articles on the right-hand side of the home page.
Please use the title of the News Pick as the title of your thread, so we know
which article you're writing about. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: achurch on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 11:15 PM EST |
In which those who post on topic shall be forced to put an Apple patent to
music. Remember to make your links clickable -- set the post mode to HTML
Formatted and see the red text at the bottom of the posting form. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 01:08 AM EST
- New Help Desk - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 06:23 AM EST
- New Lowering the Bar - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 06:27 AM EST
- Adobe CEO refuses to answer Australian pricing questions - Youtube 4:05 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 09:22 AM EST
- Anyone can bypass your iPhone's passcode - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Malware Industrial Complex - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 03:36 PM EST
- Hey -o-, let’s go! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 04:39 PM EST
- Python Name Under Attack - Authored by: llanitedave on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 11:11 PM EST
- Another New Help Desk - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 04:53 AM EST
- New XKCD - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 04:59 AM EST
|
Authored by: achurch on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 11:17 PM EST |
For transcriptions of Comes exhibits. See the booking
page to get started. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 12:19 AM EST |
I though there were still issues the trial judge had not ruled on and that no
appeal could be filed until those issues were decided and a final judgment was
entered.
Did I miss something?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 12:26 AM EST |
This appeal brief (Apple I) is more or less the same as
Apple
II fail
Request for Rehearing En Banc... and upon counting
the lawyers 50+
that
are
representing Apple in Apple I? That's a a pretty aggressive
strategy.
That's what happen
when you
have too much money (I think
that's a bad corporate
philosophy).
- C. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 02:51 AM EST |
Yes Captain!
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 04:31 AM EST |
62 lawyers on one side, who knows how many on the other side. And then there's
the judge, how few staff do they have?
I feel sorry for the judges in these cases[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 05:27 AM EST |
Samsung is competing with us. Stop them.
Apple is protesting that Samsung
is having success. There is a notable dearth of outlining a connection between
their success and the claimed infringements. Causal nexus and all
that.
Since that was the point of denying an injunction, I don't think that
Apple is doing itself a favor by starting the summary of its sob story without
even addressing that.
They are just giving the impression of "60 lawyers did
not manage to find anything of substance for calling the verdict into question,
so they are just going through the motions". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Proof of a lack: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 06:38 AM EST
- Another reading? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 09:09 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 07:24 AM EST |
"Absent a permanent injunction, Apple would be significantly
harmed by the risk of Samsung's continued infringement."
How? You might be harmed if Samsung did something. It's hard
to see how you could be harmed by the possibility of Samsung
doing it.
Significantly harmed? Really? Will your share price tumble?
Will you be unable to manufacture phones? Will people refuse
to buy your phones? All of those are significant. So what's
significant about the continued existence of the way things
are now?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 351-4V on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 09:20 AM EST |
That's it! Hire all the lawyers in the country so there are none left to
defend Samsung.
Well, that's one way to win I suppose. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 09:45 AM EST |
I don't understand; they want the injunction in case Samsung starts to
"infringe" again? Wouldn't they have to prove that the new product
does in fact "infringe"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 10:01 AM EST |
The foreman of the jury wasn't fair
And Apple won a billion dollar suit
But that's not much for Job's lot to share
So they've found other issues to recruit
Injunctions aren't for economic harm
For that a court can make the loser pay
But Apple think the way to win the farm
Is make all other players run away
So even though the law does not allow it
These fruity folk are gunning for a ban
They've launched a brief and shown us they'll endow it
With every movie bad-guy's evil plan
Five dozen lawyers have to be enough
That's ten for law and fifty playing rough!
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hedronist on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 02:49 PM EST |
Because that is what lawyers do. They are wired to try to win. So
they tell you to keep going. Just a little bit more and victory will be
yours.
Fortunately there are a few lawyers that this doesn't
apply to.
Back in the 80's my 4-person software company got sued by a former
contractor. It was pure, unadulterated BS based on a badly-written (by me)
contract, and I was ready to fight to the very end.
Our attorney, Tim Scott,
then of Wilson Sonsini in Palo Alto, explained that the attorney on the other
side was a classic "small plaintiff" bottom-feeder. He said this guy knew
exactly what it would cost us to defend, and that, even if we won, the
absence of an attorney's fees clause (my fault) meant we would not get a dime
back.
He told me I had two choices:
- Fight the suit, lose months or
more of our business focus, and maybe even lose in court, or
- Settle it and
get on with our lives.
He then said, somewhat jokingly, that his wife
would probably like us to fight it because the fees he would earn would pay for
a year in private school for their son.
It still sticks in my craw, but we
settled. Great advice from a great attorney. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|