decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Do you have a link? | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Do you have a link?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT
"I just read that Apple had this evidence in front of them at the beginning
of February, 2012 and even used discovery to question Samsung's designer about
them in that same month. That's six months ago."

Where did you read that?

Please, do you have a link?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why is Judge Koh denying Samsung's right to defend itself?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:10 AM EDT
The F700 isn't one of phones that apple is accusing samsung
of having copied:

"Apple‘s claim that the F700 copied Apple‘s patented designs
was consistent with the allegations of its original
Complaint, where it included the F700 as one of the accused
products – although it later chose to drop this claim (Dkt.
No. 1178 at 2), undoubtedly recognizing it was frivolous
because the F700 predated the iPhone."

from near the top of pg 10 of the motion

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why is Judge Koh denying Samsung's right to defend itself?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT
The more cellphones are added into consideration by either side, the more
obvious it becomes that everybody builds upon everybody else's efforts in this
industry, which is exactly as it should be. The only real culprit here is the
concept of "IP" which seeks to cordon off sections of ideas space when
in reality everyone inhabits an international sea of ideas under continual mix.
Apple especially is in total denial about this, refusing to acknowledge their
deep debt to everything that came before.

It's very hard to find a non-speculative reason for Koh's denial of Samsung's
right to defend itself, which appears to be quite deliberate. It's even harder
to see why she could possibly be "livid" at Quinn as reported, when he
has done everything by the book and isn't even in luke warm water legally. It's
very bizarre.

The absence of any explanations from Koh for her behavior is probably the
biggest problem for her here --- she's looking like the exact opposite of the
highly logical and balanced and self-explaining Judge Alsup in the Oracle-Google
case, who was quite happy to reverse himself when provided with more
information, and always stated why.

Is she simply out of her league? The alternative explanations are very much

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why is Judge Koh denying Samsung's right to defend itself?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
What I am asking is where does the US find all these judges? Is the Delaware
bankruptcy court giving lessons, or what?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why is Judge Koh denying Samsung's right to defend itself?
Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT
I think we must conclude that Samsung feels
the same way you do, that she isn't being
fair. That's why all the drama happened.
And he got her attention. Even if she doesn't
alter her ways, he's made a record in both
courts, hers and the court of public opinion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Error made?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 05:24 AM EDT
Perhaps because the earlier injunction might be shown to be in error and Apple
would lose this case? Would damages be due?
In just about any other country the case would be dropped and new proceedings
started before a different judge with all the evidence on show. These cases do
not paint a good picture.

[ 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 )