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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
I think the judge is embarrassed about making up laws about imaginary contracts | 60 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Hard of Listening... (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 01:51 AM EDT
.

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Strong statement in Motorola's brief
Authored by: stegu on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 04:27 AM EDT
I find the statement "No tribunal has held that..." very strong. The
lawyers for Motorola need to be pretty sure of their case knowledge and search
skills to say that. Or is it permissible to omit the cautious clause "to
our knowledge" in legal briefs and let the opponent try to find
counter-examples? Not that I think there are any, but still, my scientific
training makes that definitive, strong statement of a total lack of precedent
pop out of the page. In my non-legal mind, that's sticking out their neck quite
a bit. Of course, if it's true (which I suspect it is), it is the right thing to
do.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think the judge is embarrassed about making up laws about imaginary contracts
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 04:44 AM EDT
He is so far from actual US and global contract and patent law that he cannot
regain a position of legal authority.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can the judge undo the bad ruling he made in favour of M$FT?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 06:36 AM EDT
Remember that the judge entertains the theory that a contract preexists by the
mere act of entering a patent into a standard, otherwise we could not be talking
about "breach of contract" in the first place.

So we are not in the situation "initial offer designed to get negotiations
started": a contract already exists. Now you may well claim "this
does not even make sense, this is a contract about making a contract and not
identical with the contract that is supposed to be made in consequence".

Which is quite reasonable. However, remember that the "contract about
making a contract" was made, if at all, with the standards body so
Microsoft would not have had standing to sue for breach of contract in the first
place.

So the sky's the limit for the legal theories this judge will be willing to
entertain on behalf of Microsoft. I don't see how the current state even makes
sense, so your guess is as good as mine whether the next theory will make any
sense.

[ 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 )