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
Samsung Spin | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Samsung Spin
Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 11:53 PM EDT
The patent now makes no sense. Good luck convincing a jury that you don't infringe something that is impossible to understand. If you have to assume patents are valid as a jury, yet it is impossible to figure out what it means how can you find infringement or non-infringement?

In a world where the patent system is sane and adds value, this should be more of a problem for Apple than Samsung. The counter proposal would be Good Luck convincing a jury that you infringe something that is impossible to understand. Bear in mind that patent validity being assumed is one thing, but the plaintiff still has to show evidence that the accused actually infringes the patent.

Whether we live in a world where the patent system is sane and adds value... that is a question for each person to answer for themselves.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Jury does not have to assume the patents are valid
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 07:45 AM EDT

The foreman in the case had it wrong.

The Court instructions clearly allow for the Jury to find the patents invalid if they choose to do so.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What rewording?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 09:25 AM EDT
"Once Apple reworded their patent how do we know that Samsung devices
infringe the revised wording?"


Kindly identify this rewording.

There was no rewording.

[ 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 )