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
Remember the adverts Apple were required to publish? | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Remember the adverts Apple were required to publish?
Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 03:11 PM EDT

Apple accused Samsung of copying in courts all over the world - and lost in all of them except in the US. One judge was so miffed by Apple's relentless false statements that he required them to publish apologies in the newspapers and on their website. Apple tried to use these statements as a vehicle for their lies, and they got spanked again in court until they cleaned up their act a bit. Techies all over the world are well aware of this judgement against Apple. If you repeat Apple's false claims, then at best, techies will think you are a bit ignorant and gullible.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Only obvious when?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:07 PM EDT
"Someone else invented it and has a patent on it. Its only obvious now,
after the fact."

Puh-lease... this is functionality that has been around for years before that
patent even existed. Not to mention that even before cell phones, people were
tracking calls and correspondence, and doing all these things as simply part of
normal day to day communication.

Yet another case of "its on a computer, so it must be new!"

[ 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 )