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
Astonishing lack of what? | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Funny the same piece is posted...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 03:24 PM EDT
....at the end of the postings to this article.

Are you a double nature or is it just doublespeak.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Astonishing lack of what?
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 04:55 PM EDT
The instructions have to say something very
specific, to violate the current claim 19
construction.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Astonishing lack of what?
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 05:06 PM EDT
Can't you read? Samsung tells the court:
In its supplemental response to the PTO, Apple conceded that Lira “achieves the visual result” called for by Claim 19, but argued that it still did not invalidate Claim 19 because the computer instructions that caused the snap back function to occur had the purpose of causing the web page to “center” on the screen rather than explicitly seeking to perform edge alignment.
Computer software is instructions. All. So of course there were instructions. But the instructions Apple talked about at trial were not the same as in Lira; the purpose was different, even if the result looked the same.

That's the USPTO slicing the baloney rather thin, for starters. But in any case the point is that the instructions are different. And Samsung wants a new trial so it can defend itself from the *real* construction Apple now insists are the *real* way to understand the patent's words. OK, says Samsung, under the new understanding, which isn't what you said at trial, we don't infringe.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Understanding of the process - you even quoted it...
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Saturday, July 13 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT
I think PJ has already responded to you more ably than I could (no change
there). You've done the "long quote which doesn't actually provide a
rebuttal" thing before. It was no more successful there than here. Perhaps
you thought no-one would expect the same failing tactic again.

As a slight variation you have attempted a classic straw man argument using a
bit of quote mining. The quote of mine you chose related to a specific paragraph
of the preceding post by yourself (the reference to which you have left out, of
course). The quote you have selected provides no support for your statement in
that earlier paragraph.

The first two paragraphs related to actions taken at the outset of litigation.
The quote you provide is expert testimony at court following discovery, claim
construction discussions and various pre-trial motions. So not at the outset of
the litigation at all, then.

In that paragraph to which I referred, you suggested Apple would make a blanket
allegation of infringement and Samsung could respond by showing its own code to
demonstrate non-infringement. My response (as quoted by you) pointed out that
the correct process (IMHO,IANAL) is that Apple has to providence evidence of
infringement to which Samsung may then respond.

Care to guess what your quote from the trial shows Apple doing in court? It
shows Apple providing alleged evidence of Samsung's infringement through
Samsung's code. So the quote actually shows Apple doing as I suggested and
simultaneously undermined your statement. So, thank you, the citation is quite
enough to prove my point. Cheers.

And, to repeat it again to aid your comprehension, that thing you lack is
"understanding of the process".
---------------------
Nigel Whitley

[ 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 )