|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How A 17-Year-Old Girl Won a Hackathon – And What It Means for Women in Tech - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Size Matters - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- Things are looking up for Google Glass - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 09:47 PM EDT
- Samsung Recall - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 02:25 AM EDT
- British Telecom Claims Patents on VOIP Session Initiation Protocol - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- Filmmaking at the atomic level? IBM nets Guinness world record - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Trevor Pott unloads on Adobe for being to Ninite - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- McAffee? Ask? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- If Android is 'cooler' to younger users, Apple could be in trouble - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- reddit's privacy policy has been rewritten from the ground up - come check it out - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Unringing a Bell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Video Poker firmware bug yields big money .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 07:57 PM EDT
- The Troubled Life of Patent No. 6,456,841 Tracing the tortured legal trail of a simple smartpho - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 08:09 PM EDT
- Andreessen: Android poised to explode in emerging markets - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- Gamma's FinFisher and FinSpy trick people into thinking it’s Mozilla Firefox - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 08:38 PM EDT
- 'The Single Most Valuable Document In The History Of The World Wide Web' - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 12:00 AM EDT
- The Gosnell trial - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 05:08 AM EDT
- Senator Schumer Targets Patent Trolls, Wants USPTO To Review Lawsuits Before They Go To Court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Charge Inflation - From Pop Bottle to WMD - Authored by: cassini2006 on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 10:23 AM EDT
- T-Mobile Calling Plans Run Afoul of Washington State's Attorney General - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- "Fix the Debt" CEOs Enjoy Taxpayer-Subsidized Pay - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- 'Economics Needs Replication' - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- Political corruption and the 'free trade' racket - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 03:33 AM EDT
- Mercedes-Benz stolen car tracking works, just ask the Boston Marathon bombers - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- Leonard Susskind Teaches You “The Theoretical Minimum” for Understanding Modern Physics - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- What new features do you wish Google would add to Android? - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 12:13 PM EDT
- How social network policies are changing speech and privacy norms - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- What it’s like to live without the Internet for a year - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- There really is an IP Daily! - Authored by: albert on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 04:20 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
Is Judge Koh aware that this very public case, which is being watched by many
thousands of spectators, gives off a complete reek of unfairness and bias
towards Apple? Does she not understand, or not care, that this helps to
undermine a little bit further everyone's trust in the U.S. legal system?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
Do we know that reasons the judge gave for rejecting Samsung Seventh Amendment
augument of requiring a new trial on both damages and liability issues?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
I'm sure that Apple will dump something on the USPTO at the last second, but
what are their deadlines and can they extend them? I'm just wondering on
whether there's any chance of a fair outcome for Samsung here.
Also, will they be able to deal with it at the appeals level if it happens after
this is over, but while the appeal is still ongoing? Because I sure hope it
gets put to rest by then.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
according to
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html (section
706.07(f) Time for Reply to Final Rejection)
The max amount of time that the process can go on for is 6
months. What's its even more interesting, is that the trial
date is set for 6 months and 14 days from now. So the
question is, has the judge considered this when choosing a
trial date?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
Do you all think Apple is at all likely to ignore at least part of the judges
order and throw in some new evidence?
More importantly, what will the judge do when it happens?
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
I know some of you will get offended but I'm really
questioning the competence of this judge. She's allowed this
case to get as complicated as it got and I think she's lost
herself in all the resulting mess.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
Unless you are Samsung...
So this patent is not valid but we are still getting fined?!?
LOL farce indeed.
---
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: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
So, unless i missed something - doesn't all of this still
hinge on the appeals court?
Even if They have the jury trial on damages, and samsung is
forced to pay for patents that are later permanently
invalidated, can't everything be overturned in appeals court?
or does the appeals court not care about post-ruling
invalidated patents? - in which case, yes samsung is screwed
and judge koh, it seems, is being completely unreasnoable
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
Regarding the following comments:
"I think, from my reading, this means that Samsung gets to ask again for a
stay if the USPTO refuses to reopen the reexam of either patent after a final
order and the Apple response is considered. The '915 patent isn't as far along
as the '381, but the '381 is a biggie, so if it gets shut down soon, no doubt
Samsung will file a new motion for a stay.
I guess she means that then a stay to wait for all the appeals to go through the
courts would make some sense. Right now, she thinks it's best to pretend it's
not happening, that the USPTO didn't issue a final action of invalidation,
because there's miles to go before this patent sleeps, if it does, in eternal
rest. But actually, that's not true. The '381 patent already has a final office
action. Apple gets to respond, and then either the USPTO reopens or they don't.
Maybe she is calculating that this will happen prior to November 12th. But why
gamble on unfairness?
Because this is how true horribles like the RIM case happen, where a company is
pressured into paying for invalid patents, and this order makes it very possible
the same thing will happen to Samsung, if the USPTO doesn't get a move on, and
I'd be very surprised if Apple helps it to speed up. If I was Apple and I had no
ethical core, that's what I'd do. Happily, I'm not Apple, and I find the whole
process we are watching a very fine example of why US patent law is destroying
tech. That's the polite description of my feelings about US patent law. "
The language of the Judges order is confusing. It refers to reopening
prosecution. However, prosecutions is not yet closed. Reopening prosecution is
something that can happen after an appeal brief is filed. We are not at that
point yet.
At this stage, the Apple can still file a response to the Final Office Action,
which could include persuasive arguments. The Examiner can withdraw his
rejection of the claims and allow the patent. The Examiner can also maintain
the rejections.
If the rejections are maintained, THEN Apple can file a notice of APPEAL and a
request for a pre-appeal review by supervisors. If based on that 5 page
request, the supervisors support the Examiner, THEN Apple can file an Appeal
Brief.
This is the point at which prosecution can be reopened. If the Examiner and
(and the supervisors?) are persuaded by the more thorough arguments presented in
the appeal brief that their position is weak, they can re-open prosecution.
If they don't re-open prosecution, the Appeal moves forward.
It seems the Judge is over looking the possibility of a lot of stages.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: assemblerhead on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
Something that has been bothering me...
Personal Opinion : mistakes were made by the Judge.
Is this Judge being influenced by the Oriental / Asian concept of
"Face"?
Could the responses given be in fear of "Loss of Face"?
(i.e. admitting error.)
Or am I just misunderstanding the concept of "Face"?
Hearsay :
Western programmers have long been sought out by Oriental / Asian companies,
because they can admit error and correct the mistakes without "Loss of
Face" in those areas.
They had none to begin with :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
