|
|
|
| Authored by: NigelWhitley on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 07:36 AM EDT |
I deduce, based on the content of the post and particularly the last paragraph,
that English is not your native language. I'm happy to make allowances for
someone brave enough to post in a "foreign" language, but I am unable
to determine whether the errors in your response are due to poor reasoning or
poor translation.
Dealing with that last paragraph first. I made no reference to England, the
British Isles nor to the UK so I am puzzled as to why you would think I need
instruction regarding the distinction or how it is pertinent to this case. FWIW
I am from Wales so I suspect I am more familiar with the distinctions than
yourself (as you may know, England and Wales share a legal system so the law is
not different between those parts, although Scotland and Northern Ireland each
have their own). My comments were limited to the subject of the article, which
relates to a case in the USA and isn't any of the places I didn't mention in my
earlier post.
Second: I am the poster you responded to. (Seriously, it was kind of you to
point that out as it can be very difficult when several "Anonymous"
posters contribute and there's no obvious way to determine which is which)
The sentence in which I implied (which I assume you meant by "tell")
"that the outcome of the court-case was correct" was intended
ironically. In other words, I feel it is unreasonable (IMHO,IANAL) to expect the
jury to have "correctly" interpreted claim 19 i.e. according to
Apple's recent representation to the USPTO, when there are indications that the
USPTO and both sets of lawyers did not interpret it that way. To clarify even
further, I think the jury may have been misled into delivering a verdict based
on an invalid interpretation of claim 19. But we haven't heard Apple's side of
things yet. If it helps, I have lots of inside information I don't want to
reveal but none that relates to the cases on Groklaw. :-)
One of us must need glasses because I don't see "assertions based on what
what might have transpired in the discussions between the parties" but you
claimed you see nothing else. Presumably except where I talked at length about
the other side of the Atlantic, so prompting your final paragraph. The court
record shows there were discussions regarding claim construction (as one would
expect in a patent infringement case (IMHO,IANAL)) and, especially given that
this was not an "insignificant case" (despite your assertion to the
contrary) and involved some of the leading law firms in the the US, I believe it
is reasonable to describe that part of the process as critical, just as I did.
So, it's not an assumption that there were discussions but it is an assumption
that they were critical - although in a $2 billion court case I would be
surprised if anyone felt that deciding what they were arguing about was merely
incidental. You and the OP may challenge that assumption, of course, but expect
some pretty blunt replies and no shortage of laughter if you do.
If there is any part of your post I have failed to address adequately please be
assured that I have not overlooked it as a sign of disrespect. :-)
------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
