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.

But what can Samsung do with the info? | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 12:18 PM EST


[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Here
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 12:22 PM EST


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 12:24 PM EST
Please include a link to the article


[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 12:25 PM EST
For anything not related to the article


[ Reply to This | # ]

But what can Samsung do with the info?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 12:49 PM EST
So, we, the public, don't get to find out if the license agreement in any way violates the GPL; but since Samsung won the right to see the entire license agreement, surely it's on the ball and already knows the answer to that question.
True, but it begs the question of what Samsung could do about it if it spotted a violation. Given the environment in which it gets to see the agreement, it couldn't tell the copyright owners about it, for example. And could it raise in this court a copyright issue between HTC and a third party?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Grants HTC's Redactions; Denies Samsung's Motion to File Supplement Expert Declaration~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 01:07 PM EST
So much.... interesting?.... stuff in the first part of this

"So another denial for Samsung, which can now add it to the
list for appeal."

No. If everything that has been claimed as a subject for
appeal was actually a subject for appeal in this case, the
initial brief would be, what, 3000 pages long? This isn't a
game of "throw everything against the wall and hope some
stuff sticks." It's pick the best grounds and fight on
those. Appeals have page limits... not that either litigant
has been very good with court limits to date!

"It's been like that every time I check who gets the most
motions denied."

It's almost like one litigant has been more aggressive in
their requests. I wonder if there is a law firm none for
their especially aggressive litigation tactics... heck, they
might even advertise that fact?

"Apple opposed and indeed her order opens with the same
thought used by Apple in its opposition"

Two parties file motions/responses, and present alternate
stories. The judge's job is to accept one of those competing
versions. Ergo, almost all ruling will parrot one version of
events. Not a conspiracy; it's how litigation works.

It doesn't help to view this as rooting for a "team" (team
Apple, team Samsung). They are corporations that have hired
attorneys. They will continue to litigate to their
advantage, and eventually settle. That's how it goes. That's
how it always goes. If you find yourself believing that one
company or the other is "on your side", you will be in for a
world of sorrow in the future.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Vote for Groklaw Thread
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 01:14 PM EST
294!! C'mon people, lets go for 300 :P. Legal As She Spoke is in second place with 222. (Legal Technology)

9 days left to vote.

I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg 100. Did you? Voting ends Dec 21.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tomi Ahonen says that the Apple iPhone was "a copy of an industrial design winning LG phone"
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 01:56 PM EST
A Bloodbath for 2010: the Smartphone market preview Quote:
LG A more interesting player in smartphones is LG. LG is the third biggest handset maker out of South Korea and like Samsung, they have pretty much ignored the smartphone space. But - remember the original 'amazing' looks of the iPhone? That totally radical one button touch screen flat 3.5 inch screen wonderphone when first shown by Steve Jobs in January 2007?

The looks of the iPhone, exact dimensions, etc, were considered in January 2007 to be a copy of an industrial design winning LG phone - from 2006. Apple designers cleverly copied an award-winning LG design to create the 'wow' factor in 2007, because LG had not brought this phone to the Western markets (we eventually saw the consumer version of it as the LG Chocolate, released in Europe before the iPhone launched in the USA in 2007). So LG knows fully well how to do this type of phones and form factors. They just haven't bothered to do that as a "smartphone" so far. But the LG Chocolate was Europe's bestselling phone at one point in 2007 and in its lifetime has sold more units than all iPhones.
As a previous poster comments:
Does this suggest that they think that it's OK for Apple to copy the ideas of others but nobody else can do the same thing?

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's the GPL got to do with this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:11 PM EST
I must be not awake yet, I thought the case was about Apple's patents,
Samsung's alleged infringement of them, and HTC's license to them.
Apple knows all about the GPL, it has GPL components in MacOS.
Apple might have ben displaying some stupidity lately, but that stupid?
Apple also knows about BSD and Apache licenses, it uses them,
so there's a possibility that some of the BSD/Apache licensed parts
of HTC's flavor of Android might come near some of Apple's, but that's
nowhere near this Apple - Samsung case.

How much of Android beyond the Linux kernel is GPL?
I thought the user shell/GUI and the application frameworks
were under a whole slew of other licenses, just like MacOS is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't GPL authors petition the court to see?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:40 PM EST
The parties who wrote or participated in relevant GPL'd code should be able to
petition the courts to see these documents in order to determine whether or not
these agreements are in violation of the GPL right? It might take some sort of
lawyering I'm sure, but isn't there anyone here who might take up the fight
enough to file a motion of some kind?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's judge rules against Samsung again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:19 PM EST

I'm know I'm surprised -- NOT.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Grants HTC's Redactions; Denies Samsung's Motion to File Supplement Expert Declaration~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 03:49 PM EST
Love read Groklaw as the only real factual analysis of the Apple v Samsung saga.
I find the optimism about fairness in the US justice system refreshing. But
seriously is there anyone who expected a US judge and a US jury to act fairly
when the case is between a company viewed in the US as heroic and a foreign
company. That was never going to happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )