Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
As I understand (I'm not Legally educated in any sense of the phrase cept
what I've learned through Groklaw) any third party can file a "friend of Court"
brief. Whether or not that brief will be even glanced at is another
question.
Generally the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a number of
things including:
The patent was a key selling point with customers (this
helps increases the damages wanted)
while the onus is on the defendant to
prove a number of things including:
The patent was not a key selling point
with customers (this helps decrease the damages wanted)
They usually do
that through expert testimony.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mbouckaert on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
Can someone maybe suggest that some people (including me) do
buy Samsung (or HTC or...) because these are *not* iPhones?
I don't want to pay to have to deal with that [expletive
deleted] ecosystem.
I don't mind automatic transmissions on cars anymore, but
this iPrison is not for me.
(and no, not my kind of cool either)
---
bck[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- Too late - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
I accept Apple make good designs, but I doubt I would ever buy
one. For me Apple and Microsoft have for many years an image to be
very focused on legal procedures. And I would be afraid paying
legal fees in stead of design and production costs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, August 15 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
Your Honour,
We would like to call all 22.7 million Samsung phone owners and ask them why
they bought the phone.
Yours, the Samsung legal team.
---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|