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
Fixing the system | 293 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple's Game Revealed in Apple v. Samsung Post-Trial Skirmishes ~pj
Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 03:42 PM EDT

Apple asks the judge [PDF], the Hon. Lucy Koh, to correct her math in her March 1st order, saying she used the wrong date when granting Samsung's motion for a new trial on damages with respect to two products. Apple says the parties had reached a stipulation on the date the two were first sold, and that date is not the date the judge used.

Just out of curiosity, if the parties to a lawsuit stipulate about something related to the lawsuit, is the judge required to honor that stipulation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

subsequent cancellation of claims in a reexamination does not disturb an earlier final court jud
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 04:51 PM EDT
What impact would it have were Samsung to point out that Apple were clearly
asking for a miscarriage of justice ... ?

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple and Fair appear to be directly contradictory concepts
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 04:54 PM EDT

Judge:

    Will you, Apple, abide by the ruling of my findings?
Apple:
    If you find more then $1 per device, Nope!
For those unware of the above situation, this occurred in the Wisconsin lawsuit Apple initiated to ask the Court to "set a fair license fee for SEPs". To quote the Judges ruling:
It added, however, that it would be willing to pay a rate of no more than $1 for each Apple device going forward, while it retained the right to appeal any award higher than $1, as well as to refuse any such rate and proceed to further infringement litigation.
Perhaps it should have been evident earlier in the case that Apple was seeking only a ceiling on the potential license rate that it could use for negotiating purposes, but it was not. This became clear only when Apple informed the court in its October 31 response that it did not intend to be bound by any rate that the court determined.
Ahh - dismissal with prejudice. Justly deserved.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent Office Liability Insurance
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 05:17 PM EDT
Hope the US Patent Office has enough liability insurance to cover all losses
when a company gets sued and looses big on a patent that never should have been
granted.

Sort of points to the US Government being responsible for covering all fines /
fees / awards when these come to trial.

Perhaps there should be a "turbo-charged re-validation" of every
patent before any patent trial can be held to validate that the patent is valid,
then post bond for any amounts that might be sought in case the patent turns out
to be invalid and the lawsuit was allowed to progress.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wish I were a Judge...
Authored by: JonCB on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 05:37 PM EDT
If someone told me that their crown jewels were being re-
evaluated and it could take up to 32 months, i would totally
put the case on a 32 month stay until the completion of said
evaluation.

Thats 32 months where the two parties could come to their
senses and agree to a settlement. Meanwhile I could go on to
trying other cases. Talk about Efficiencies!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread ...
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 05:59 PM EDT
Please post any corrections here.
Do not offer corrections to any PDF transcripts without
first checking against originals.

A summary in the posts title may be helpful.
e.g. Apple->slimy rotten Apple

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple appears to have changed attorneys in the ReExam
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 06:02 PM EDT
I don't know what it means, but I not that in re-exam 90/012,304 an new power of
attorney has been filed naming a different firm from the one that received the
final office action.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 06:32 PM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 06:33 PM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 06:35 PM EDT
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple vs Samsung
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 08:08 PM EDT
While Apple and Samsung are playing Tweedledum and Tweedledee, who's watching their backs? PJ thinks this Taiwan news story puts the Foxconn MS patent license in perspective. While the pots and kettles are calling each other black, there's a sleeping giant on their doorstep. With the allocation of 4G spectrum China Mobile can start to forget its unfortunate experiment with TD-SCDMA, and domestic handset makers already providing WCDMA for China Unicom are starting to expand their markets. e.g. Jiayu and Oppo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Game Revealed in Apple v. Samsung Post-Trial Skirmishes ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 08:57 PM EDT
I think Samsung should agree to a re-trial on the following conditions:

1. For each patent found invalid by the USPO, Apple will be required to pay
Samsung twice the amount awarded by the jury for that patent.

2. For each patent found invalid by the USPO, Apple will be required to pay
Samsung all reasonable attorneys' fees regarding that patent from the start of
this litigation.

3. If all patents are ultimately found to be invalid, Apple will pay the court
a fine of 10% of gross earnings for the 2013 fiscal year for wasting the court's
time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Justice and Fairness
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 10:11 PM EDT
I don't remember where or when, but I seem to remember someone
once saying something along the lines of (talk about a whole
pack of weasels in those words):
The American Justice System is not about justice or fairness.
It's all about procedure.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Justice and Fairness - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 10:38 PM EDT
  • Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 11:32 AM EDT
    • Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 01:43 PM EDT
Apple's Game Revealed in Apple v. Samsung Post-Trial Skirmishes ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 01:53 AM EDT
I hope I'm not still writing about this case for four more years!
Unfortunately, on reading that, all I could think about was similar statements made during the SCO case(s). You seem to know how to pick 'em :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fixing the system
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 06:08 AM EDT

Human systems usually get fixed when it has been demonstrated that the systems have been badly broken and are not delivering the desired results. This case may end up being one of those cited when the Patent system is eventually reformed.

It has all the elements, along with the case here RIM was forced to pay $600 Million for patents that were later invalidated.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • It wont.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 06:24 AM EDT
  • Fixing the system - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 19 2013 @ 07:22 PM EDT
Judicial Efficiency
Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 09:29 AM EDT
I rather think that the most rational course of action for the judge would be to
punt everything until the USPTO circus folds its tent (and possibly until the
appeals court decides whether to nuke the jury verdict altogether). It's
shocking that a litigant would, in effect, expressly state that they wanted
"sentence first, verdict afterwards" in the form of setting damages
for infringing patents that have been found invalid.

A judge with a sense of fairness must surely be inclined to let the patent
situation clarify itself before going ahead with a retrial based on a flawed
jury verdict like this one, to say nothing of the fact that said verdict is
likely to be vacated on appeal.

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Game Revealed in Apple v. Samsung Post-Trial Skirmishes ~pj
Authored by: mvs_tomm on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 12:02 PM EDT
How can it be appropriate for any kind of trial to occur over a patent that the
PTO has ruled invalid? Sure, Apple can appeal. Maybe the patent will be
reinstated. Maybe it won't.

How is their current situation with the invalidated patent any different from
someone who has a patent pending? You can't sue someone for infringing a patent
that has yet to be issued, can you? How can there be a trial for damages for an
invalid patent?

Tom Marchant

[ Reply to This | # ]

They wanted to "send a message" ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 01:46 PM EDT
I think it would be more accurate to say that the FOREMAN (i.e., _he_, not they)
wanted to "send a message", and he bullied the rest of the jury into
allowing this to happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't understand
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 03:13 PM EDT
I don't understand why these companies aren't simply saying
"Software is not Patent Eligible, all your patents are
invalid." It's like no one likes what's going on but they
won't change because no one will give up their own patent
weapons. Someone needs to grow up and say "All software
patents are invalid, including mine!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Game Revealed in Apple v. Samsung Post-Trial Skirmishes ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 08:24 PM EDT
I'm getting really sick and tired of this mess. I know you don't want this
to be a political site. But there are a bunch of really bad laws, and the
lawmakers have no interest in fixing them. The only way I can see to fix
the problem is to change the lawmakers. There is an election in about
a year and a half. Do something about it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Game Revealed in Apple v. Samsung Post-Trial Skirmishes ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 08:26 PM EDT
If the USPTO's invalidity ruling is tardy, can't Samsung just
file a motion for a new trial based on the discovery of new
and cogent evidence?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time to go home PJ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 19 2013 @ 02:13 PM EDT
"Fairness and justice isn't on the Apple table in these filings, not by my
lights. I read all this and feel like I need a shower to wash the ick off. I
only wish Apple felt the same way."

Wow, I wish you were more outraged over real problems than trivial squabbles
between large corporations.

How do you feel about Congress latest inability to pass gun reform because
lobbyists have more influence than voters?

How do you feel about Keystone pipeline and eminent domain being used to steel
land from homeowners on behalf of a foreign corporation?

How do you feel about the DOJ's inability to prosecute large banks like HSBC for
committing crimes like money laundering for drug cartels, because doing so would
upset the our economy.

The squabble between Apple and Samsung is a trifle.



[ 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 )