|
Authored by: macliam on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
Please post corrections here, with -> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
For discussion of news picks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Oral argument in AMP v. Myriad Genetics at SCOTUS on April 15 - Authored by: macliam on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 07:49 PM EDT
- Feedly gains 3M new users after Google's RSS death warrant, plans paid subs -Android:Titles view - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 09:30 PM EDT
- WinFS, Integrated/Unified Storage, and Microsoft – Part 4 - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 09:39 PM EDT
- Unreal Engine 3 - ported to JS by Mozilla/Epic - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- Dancing sea lion likes disco - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- ReDigi - violates © law, infringement is all it's good for, loses © fight with Capitol Records - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 02:43 AM EDT
- Help Dek Comic - Confusing Your Source Material - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Belated April Fool's Jokes Here Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- A galactic star gazer takes a final look before bowing out (pictures) - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- Novartis loses patent case .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 11:23 AM EDT
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:35 PM EDT
|
|
|
|