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
Judicial Efficiency | 293 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judicial Efficiency
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 10:13 AM EDT
I think that she should set aside the entire verdict until all
certainty over whether the patents are valid are settled. She
can then start a new trial in (say) 2018. By that time, she'll
probably feel that with a little luck she will have passed the
case on to some other poor sucker.... :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judicial Efficiency
Authored by: squib on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
I'm not disagreeing with you OmniGeek. However, the judge might still find herself between a rock and a hard place. At the start of this litigation, I think she felt a duty (justly some might say) to be economic with the courts time (tax payers pay a lot into the judicial system) but found herself in a situation of having one party with a very, very formidable and aggressive stance (which she had not been trained to cope with) and the other party equally ability to stand up and defend its rights in law (which she had not been trained to cope with). As she has adopted America as her home, she must feel the need to justify her conviction to show that the US court system is superior to that of her forebears by defending the the American Credo.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

As I posted above. Parallel Exclusion by C. Scott Hemphill of Columbia University - Law School &
Tim Wu also of Columbia University - Law School March 19, 2013
That paper show that it is no longer necessary to compete on the basis of a better product but only on the advantage of ones economic might.

She evidently did not walk into this with an understanding of industrial warfare, so I doubt if she can stop further escalations.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )