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
Got here through slashdot | 81 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here: Appeal->Apple
Authored by: macliam on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 06:52 PM EDT
Please post corrections here, with ->

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: macliam on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 06:54 PM EDT
For discussion of news picks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: macliam on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 06:57 PM EDT
Anyone posting on topic here should explain the precise details of the claim
constructions and theories of infringement for every one of the patents at issue
in the first Apple v. Samsung trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes goes here
Authored by: macliam on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 07:01 PM EDT
For transcriptions of Comes v. Microsoft exhibits. If rendered in HTML, please
post in Plain Old Text mode.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Comes 4262 - Authored by: foulis on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 09:36 PM EDT
    • Comes 4262 - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:03 AM EDT
Got here through slashdot
Authored by: BJ on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 08:10 PM EDT
But I'm giving a whole new meaning of the term 'slashdotted'. To wit: running
away from the latter in utter disgust.

What a relief.
April 2nd, two-two in the AM.

Finally some honest story -- after all the non-humor.
I know I'm morose (prob. Spring), but still -- I wonder if it's me.

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge is going to wait - not a chance of a new trial until the appeal - Apple are barking mad.
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 09:51 PM EDT
.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just don't get it
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 11:54 PM EDT
PJ said
In the vernacular, they goofed, so the math was wrong. It was so messed up by the jury, and so untraceable as to methodology followed, she couldn't fix it.

In such a situation, where a jury couldn't follow a logical methodology to determine a penalty that the judge could untangle, the jury's logic was flawed AND likely also flawed in their deliberations in finding a guilt verdict for the same reason (they thinking is an illogical mess). Why wasn't this explored and the actual guilty verdict itself brought into question?

Seems we have a stupid jury that can't follow directions yet only part of their stupidity is acknowledged. I just don't get it..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 10:15 AM EDT
I honestly don't seem to understand most of this post,
especially all the inferences in the paragraph starting with
the sentence, "Apple seems to desire a PR victory."

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a
nail. And when you start looking at filings with a priori
expectations, then of course you're going to draw
motivations from them based on those motivations.

It's a truism that "justice delayed is justice denied." One
can argue about whether Apple seeks "justice" (and I think
it's certainly fair to say they don't), but from that
truism, one can make the observation that in almost all
civil litigation, the plaintiff wants to speed up the
process, and the defendant wants to slow it down. There are
exceptions, none of which would apply here. Moreover, it is
certainly true after a judgment has been entered.

Another usual rule of thumb is that the plaintiff is trying
to prevail on the substance, while the defendant is trying
to dismiss on technicalities.... prior to the trial. After a
judgment (for a plaintiff), this is reversed, and the
defendant is making substantive arguments, and the plaintiff
is making procedural arguments. All of this should be
obvious, and not especially noteworthy.

So, what are we looking at here? Two parties that have clear
adversarial interests that are expressing them exactly how
you'd expect. Apple wants the process to speed up- they
believe they were wronged, and that justice delayed is
justice denied, and that they already "won", and they should
have received an injunction. Samsung, on the other hand,
wants the process slowed down, and correctly notes that it
would be a waste of judicial resources to schedule a trial
on issues that might not even be necessary (depending on the
appeal). This has nothing to do with PR, or machinations, or
bad faith, but is simply the normal process in litigation
that happens on a semi-regular basis, albeit on a much
smaller scale (with less billable hours) fairly regularly.

I think both positions have their merits, but I think the
judge will be inclined to accept Samsung's position as she
is a) probably pretty tired of the parties and b) doesn't
want to deal with this whole process given the Fed. Cir.
will be reviewing everything anyways.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Why? - Authored by: ArtimusClyde on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT
    • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:29 PM EDT
      • Why? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 11:24 PM EDT
        • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT
  • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:28 PM EDT
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 )