|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
I understand he probably has assistants and such, but does he not have to
understand each well enoough to rule on them? That is just insane.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
IBM is contending the Protective Order is binding on Reuters,
Reuters claims it is not, because they never signed it. That would make it a
Protective Agreement.
But isn't a Protective Order an Order issued by the Court and if so shouldn't
everyone be bound by it?
Reuters would still be free to oppose any motions or move that exhibits be
unsealed. In fact if Reuters doesn't have access to sealed material how can it
the make a case they it should be unsealed?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
Please type a summary error->correction or s/error/correction in the Title
box when you post your comment [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
This is a wild speculation!
That is, IBM doesn't want to get all those other companies mad at it, but knows
that if its agreement (and others, especially involving companies in Redmond
with strongly felt reputations) get disclosed, that is in its best long-term
interest.
So it plays along with the "seal my agreement" motions, creating
plausible deniablility of its true intentions, but screws up. Now, the cat has
a *very* good chance of getting out of the bag.
Poke a few holes, or add supports, anyone? (don't forget to grin when you do)
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
All these secret agreements are disgusting. Too many secrets, and too often
they are used to hide corporate criminal activity.
Why should companies have privacy when individual citizens are not allowed any?
No agreement should be enforceable unless it is also public.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
1450 - MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply
Any side bets on this being tossed? Lucy Koh sounds like she had
(past tense...) a tighter grip of the whip than Dale Kimball.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
Responding to the sidebar.
I don't recall the Singer.
I am however familiar with the song (Romney's).
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Prospective juror's reply to Samsung lawyer when asked why she contemplated
purchase of an iPad. Ina Fried's summary says it
too,
"Well, you
asked…"
allthingsd
Rightly or wrongly,
the meme is out there. Maybe it's the marketing, maybe Apple do just make better
stuff seen thru the
eyes of a juror. Maybe Apple is seen as worthy of support
because it's an American company. Oh we know their
products are all made in
China, but do J. Random jurors?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
I'm not often enthusiastic about my former employer (Thomson Reuters), but... GO
TR![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
Please read the important stuff at the bottom of the Post a comment page. Make
links clickable, if you can. On-topic posts will be ignored.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
So, I don't understand something fundamental here...
This is Apple v. Samsung. It's a patent-and-trademark case
between Apple and Samsung.
I get that there's some request for documents that are
agreements with third parties required for discovery
(Samsung's licensing agreement with IBM, Microsoft, etc.)
And why those companies, who are NOT (AFAIK) parties to the
litigation themselves, might have to produce documents.
But how the holy heck did Reuters become a party to the
litigation? Why does IBM, when producing documentation,
need to be served with a copy of IBM's agreement (which as I
understand it was produced in discovery under subpoena from
either Apple or Samsung)? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Doghouse on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
Indeed, it would be passing strange if a party which intervened for
the sole purpose of opposing sealing could be bound to a protective order whose
sole purpose was to make it easier to seal documents.
I've
studied that rather twisted sentence for some time, and as far as I can make out
it boils down to: "We only intervened because we want the opposite of what the
court ordered, so we shouldn't be bound by the court's order."
The word
for that is specious. "Officer, you can't give me a ticket. I'm only speeding to
get to the debate against speed limits!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Barroom logic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 04:10 AM EDT
- Barroom logic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 07:20 AM EDT
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
From
http://allthingsd.com/20120730/as-apple-and-samsung-head-to-court-heres-a-handy-
cheat-sheet/
"Nearly 80 attorneys had filed an appearance with the court as of Friday.
Most represent Apple or Samsung, but a number represent third parties, including
many tech companies seeking to keep their contracts secret, as well as Reuters,
which is fighting those requests."
80 attorneys. That sounds like a crowded court room.
But, which are all the third party appearances? Is there a list or an overview
somewhere?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 06:10 AM EDT |
A place to discuss the newspicks from the sidebar. Please include a link to
the story you are discussing, to maintain context when the newspick has scrolled
off.
Aside: c'mon, guys! It used to be a matter of pride to get the
canonical threads set up soon after PJ put up a new post.
This time, three
different people have done Corrections, Off Topic and Newspicks, and it's
posting +13h!. --- (c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
That's the problem with our legal system. Unless you have millions to spend, you
don't have any chance. Doesn't leave much room for the small startup, they are
easily litigated into extinction.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|