Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Apple seems to have misled the court | 393 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Apple seems to have misled the court

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 08:58 PM EDT

The chance that Apple's lawyers will be sanctioned for their deception? It's a
very special number. Only one of its kind.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple seems to have misled the court - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 11:54 PM EDT
- Apple seems to have misled the court - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:58 AM EDT
  - Plus or minus zero - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 05:03 AM EDT
    - Plus or minus zero - Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 02:54 PM EDT
    - Plus or minus zero - Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:16 PM EDT
      - Plus or minus zero - Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:57 PM EDT
        Plus or minus zero - Authored by: rcsteiner on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 01:36 PM EDT
  - Apple seems to have misled the court - Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 05:08 AM EDT
  - Chance and "flavors" of 0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 05:24 AM EDT
    - Depends on your number system. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:03 AM EDT
    - Chance and "flavors" of 0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 08:26 AM EDT
    - Chance and "flavors" of 0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:41 PM EDT
      - Chance and "flavors" of 0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 03:32 PM EDT
        Chance and "flavors" of 0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:46 PM EDT
  - Apple seems to have misled the court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 12:15 AM EDT
  - Signed zeros are part of the IEEE 754 floating point standard - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT

claim "construction" / fabrication

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 04:30 AM EDT

Is there even a requirement that what you tell the USPTO
matches what you tell the court?

They're for different things. You tell the USPTO things to get
them to grant the patent, then you tell the court things to
get them to find it infringed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

consistency - (claim "construction" / fabrication) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:55 AM EDT
consistency of claim construction is required - Authored by: alanyst on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:35 AM EDT
- Why is claim construction necessary or even permitted? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 02:18 PM EDT
  - Why is claim construction necessary or even permitted? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 02:43 PM EDT

Apple seems to have misled the court

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:57 AM EDT

Apple did not tell a lie. It's just the Clinton-Lewinsky effect. Why does Mr.
Clinton's definition have to be the same as the consensus of the news audience
or Congressional committees? If it walks and quacks it could be just ma Afflac
commercial.

[ 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 )