decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

A Winning Strategy | 182 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
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 | # ]

News Picks thread
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 | # ]

Off-topic thread
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 | # ]

Comes documents
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 | # ]

I'm Confused?
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

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 | # ]

Apple Files Appeal Re Judge Koh's Refusal to Order Injunction v. Samsung ~pj
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 | # ]

So. Much. Money. Out. The. Window.
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 | # ]

62 lawyers are listed...
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 | # ]

Well, here is the gist of the first paragraphs:
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
Harmed by risk?
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 | # ]

A Winning Strategy
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 | # ]

Injunction against future products? What?
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 | # ]

A Fruity Sonnet
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 | # ]

Not *all* lawyers ...
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:

  1. Fight the suit, lose months or more of our business focus, and maybe even lose in court, or
  2. 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 | # ]

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 )