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
If only you were acute... | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Don't be obtuse!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 02:37 PM EDT
"Apparently, Samsung read the claims and decided NOT to make an argument
that their products did not include instructions for testing the position of the
edge."

A argument worthy of a lawyer and an unknowing and obtuse one at that.

Nobody test the position of the edge because that is not the sensible way of
doing it. If Apple is practicing their own patent they are more silly then
allowed.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If only you were acute...
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 05:14 PM EDT
I'm not sure whether you think that calling someone obtuse is the same as
rebutting the points they make but, for future reference, it isn't.

You display an astonishing lack of understanding of the process here, both in
terms of the burden of proof and of the claim construction on which the parties
confer pre-trial. Unlike you, I'm not sure what argument Apple made but your
description of the process (IMHO,IANAL) is fundamentally flawed. The burden of
proof is on the plaintiff (Apple) to show how the defendant's (Samsung's)
products infringe. Apple didn't get to simply make a blanket allegation and then
Samsung had to prove their innocence : that's not the way things work in a
criminal court and it's not the case here.

So that's paragraph 3 disposed of and as for paragraph 4 : the reason why that
nonsense didn't happen is because stuff like that might happen in a bad novel or
on TV but this case was in a real court.

Paragraph 1 suggests you have insight into the legal process for patent cases
and offer an opinion based on that insight. But paragraphs 3 and 4 have amply
demonstrated that cannot be true so what we actually have is your legal opinion,
based on neither experience nor training, on what a defendant would do.

Paragraph 2 implies that Samsung decided on their defense strategy solely or
largely on their own reading of the claims. It makes no mention of any further
discussion between the parties or rulings by the court which would have had an
impact on that strategy. Yet we know those discussions took place and that the
claim construction, which is perhaps the most crucial part of a patent trial
since it decides what the plaintiff will have to prove, took many hours. So
you've taken two events in isolation, ignored the critical events that happened
in between including their effects on the process, thus making it appear that
Apple had no input to the process and the decision was taken by Samsung in a
vacuum. Using such an approach one could say that, apparently, white men came to
America and freed the black slaves. Suffice to say that it is rather less than a
complete picture.

For someone who seems to place such store by simple reading, I humbly suggest
that you read about the real patent litigation process before making further
strident and ill-informed statements about it. Sorry to be so blunt.
-------------------
Nigel Whitley

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Don't be obtuse
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 05:21 PM EDT
Samsung's lawyers had to argue against the claims, as presented by Apple's
lawyers to the court.

In an ideal situation, Samsung's lawyers would have been able to demolish both
the claim construction presented by Apple to the court, and the claim
construction presented by Apple to the USPTO. But since the court did not allow
Samsung enough to time to do both....

[ 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 )