|
Authored by: webster on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
`. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Samsung actually phrases is more tactfully -> it - Authored by: kds on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT
- korrections here ------> corrections here - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:15 PM EDT
- PJ, table of authorities loses all citations under Safari on iPad at 11pm ET - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:05 PM EDT
- 1. Reduction Of $ 0,034,295 In -> 1. Reduction Of $70,034,295 In - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:33 AM EDT
- non-omamental -> non-ornamental - Authored by: jesse on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:35 AM EDT
- Couple of typos - Authored by: nslm on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT
- ablt ---> able - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 05:27 AM EDT
- Replenich->Replenish - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT
- korrections here ------> corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT
- OCR errors a' plenty - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
|
Authored by: charlie Turner on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
SCO is over, what, 9 years now... Hope this one is a little bit shorter, but not
betting on it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
After a brief perusal, I don't see any mention of the Hanson
interviews. OR suggestion of juror misconduct. Unless that is
on pages 13 and 14.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What about addressing the same judge? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- Juror misconduct. - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- Cases cited on pp 13&14 - Let's look 'em up! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:26 PM EDT
- Cases cited on pp 2&3 - Let's look 'em up! - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT
- Pennwalt-Big can of worms - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 12:51 AM EDT
- In re Velvin R. Hogan, U.S. v. Perkins, U.S. v. Gonzalez - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT
- U.S. v. Colombo, - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT
- Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT
- Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:11 AM EDT
- Sea Hawk Seafoods v. Alyeska Pipeline - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:24 AM EDT
- Cases cited on pp 13&14 - Let's look 'em up! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 04:21 AM EDT
- Gibson v. Clanon - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT
- Dyer v. Calderon - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT
- Cases cited on pp 13&14 - Let's look 'em up! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:32 PM EDT
- Dyer v Calderon, Reversal of conviction due to jury misconduct - Authored by: webster on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT
- Gibson v Clanon - Authored by: webster on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:45 PM EDT
- Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:06 AM EDT
|
Authored by: kh on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
I did a very basic OCR. Result here
Pages are separated by a
row of 9 dashes. The number column didn't work well.
I hope it's
useful for someone to proof and format it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- pdf as text - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- pdf as text - Authored by: jjgignac on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:57 PM EDT
- pdf as text - Authored by: jjgignac on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 01:53 AM EDT
- pdf as text - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:14 AM EDT
- pdf as text - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:16 AM EDT
|
Authored by: kh on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple seeks U.S. Samsung sales ban, $707 million more in damages - Authored by: kh on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- The President Reads His Daily Brief on an iPad - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT
- NASA gets it (pic) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT
- patented license server? - Authored by: kattemann on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- OLDSCO was such a cool place to work - Authored by: Maple Syrup on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- High Frequency Trading fundementally Unstable .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Honduras - Model city to use laws of Texas - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- Senior haredi rabbi to followers: Burn your iPhones - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- HAPPY BIRTHDAY Firefox -- phoenix-0.1-win32.zip 23-Sep-2002 13:10 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- The Register:Apple scrambled to hire iOS 6 maps engineers DAYS before launch - Authored by: macrorodent on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:27 AM EDT
- Kim Dotcom - more illegal activity by Authorities - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT
- Off Topic thread - Authored by: Torinir on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
You know you want to drift off the subject now and then. You
have a little trouble paying attention to what others are
saying. Other matters seem so much more pressing now and
again. It isn't really a problem, is it?
No mention of Dickens or long trials here, please.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 08:12 PM EDT |
URL will be appreciated. Google may be our friend, but it
swamps us in millions of undifferentiated hits.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- schadenfreude - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- Poor Apple - Authored by: marcosdumay on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- Blind Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
See link
above for "Comes v. MS"
See this discussion for why we have this
thread.
--- Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:13 PM EDT |
I have read that due to California's budgetary woes they are planning to cut the
judiciary budget, which will eliminate the possibility of jury trials in civil
cases. If this becomes a reality, then any future retrial of the case will have
to be by a judge, and Samsung won't have to worry about any more strange jury
verdicts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
If phones had sharp corners the ladies around here would have trouble carrying
them without damaging a couple of delicate parts - ouchie. Round corners, very
functional. As far as sliding phones into pockets or pouches I was rounding
corners back, well several decades ago, so that one part would slide more easily
into another though that was aluminium jigs for testing.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT
- What?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 05:09 AM EDT
- What?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Mother Nature - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:14 AM EDT
- Re: Rounded Corners - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
Apple: "a much nicer shape to have next to your ear and in your
pocket"
So, Apple themselves knew that their Mac customers couldn't be relied with sharp
objects. Hate to tell you I told you so. :)
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:06 AM EDT |
Try as I might, I could not see how Judge Alsup came to his view about what a
reasonable jury would find in Oracle v. Google. I just had confidence in his
opinion because of all the other aspects of the case that he dealt with and that
I could follow.
With all the pointers provided by ~mw about trade dress, the arguments about
trade dress, functionality and the market appeal of the cool not being trade
dress protectable, I cannot see how a reasonable jury would not agree with
Samsung on all the trade dress issues.
As far as prior art is concerned, I have vented my spleen enough on that issue.
The utility patents were interesting (even considering that I believe them to be
unlawful under US law [it's OK, there is no reprise here]). Samsung appear to
show that they were not infringed.
As for the problems with the jury verdict form and the jury verdict, that has
all been said by Groklaw and Samsung.
I'm not expecting Judge Koh to give her nod in agreement to this, but I am
really looking forward to hearing her opposing arguments and citations. My guess
is that she will come up with arguments about how the issues are inappropriate
for this sort of motion.
In which case, bring on the appeal!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
http:/
/www.idownloadblog.com/2012/07/30/apple-vs-samsung-us-trial/
"
Shin Nishibori, the designer Apple hired from Sony to create a Sony-inspired
iPhone prototype, no longer works for Apple and Nishibori’s lawyer wrote in a
letter to the court yesterday that his client has no plans to testify in the
upcoming trial."
Shin Nishibori wasn't even coming to the
trial!
In my view, this would have been a very relevant witness to
Samsung.
This makes wonder if Koh has been under some sort of threat to
allow all this. This is so blatantly ...
[redacted]
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Shin was Apple's designer, and a former Sony designer, but didn't show up at trial - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT
- Please clarify last sentence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- USD - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- A payoff to a federal judge? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Manton - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT
- Manton - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:33 AM EDT
- A payoff to a federal judge? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- How else to pressure a judge? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- Shin was Apple's designer, and a former Sony designer, but didn't show up at trial - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
Proving "possible jury misconduct" looks very unlikely...
...Unless someone didn’t tell all they should have during voir dire?
But that the jury didn't follow instructions seems to be a slam dunk, the
confirmation of this given in the interviews after the trial.
>Samsung says a new trial is necessary "due to inconsistencies in the
jury's verdict on the '915 patent", in that the jury found that the Ace,
Intercept and Replenich devices don't infringed the '915 patent but all the
other accused devices do
This seems like a straight forward logical win for Samsung.
Interesting times :-)
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SLi on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
Since the table of authorities is not redacted, I guess
it's fair game to
speculate on the contents of the blacked
out section from the authorities and
statutes. (PJ: If you
think that making such guesses is ethically questionable
for
some reason, please tell me, and I'll refrain from doing so
again on
Groklaw.)
First, the single statute mentioned for page 2 is Fed R.
Evid.
606(b)(1). This already is very revealing. The title
of Rule 606 is
"Juror's Competency as a Witness",
and
paragraph (b)(1)
is:
(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence.
During an inquiry
into the validity of a verdict or
indictment, a juror may not testify about any
statement made
or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations;
the
effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s
vote; or any juror’s
mental processes concerning the verdict
or indictment. The court may not
receive a juror’s affidavit
or evidence of a juror’s statement on these
matters.
The table of authorities lists these cases for the
relevant pages (2 and 3). I will list first the authorities
for page 2, then
the one for both pages, then those for page
3.
- (page 2) Dyer v.
Calderon, 151 F.3d 970
(9th
Cir. 1998)
- (page 2) Seagate
Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, Case No.
MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30,
1993)
- (page 2)
United States v. Colombo, 869
F.2d 149
(2d Cir. 1989)
- (page 2)
United States v. Gonzales
, 214 F.3d
1109 (9th Cir.
2000)
- (page 2) In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K.
Hogan, Case No.
93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Dec. 27,
1993)
- (pages 2 and 3)
Hard v. Burlington N. R.R., 812
F.2d 482 (9th Cir. 1987)
- (page 3)
Casanas
v. Yates, 2010 WL 3987333
(N.D. Cal.
Oct. 12, 2010)
- (page 3)
Gibson v. Clanon, 633 F.2d 851
(9th
Cir. 1981)
- (page 3) Sea
Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska
Pipeline
Serv. Co., 206 F.3d 900 (9th
Cir. 2000)
- (page 3) United
States v. Perkins, 748 F.2d
1519 (11th Cir. 1984)
I haven't
read them yet, but on a superficial inspection
they seem very much related to
juror disqualification and
misconduct. Some summaries:
Dryer v.
Calderon:
The court held that
under the Sixth Amendment, a murder
defendant is denied a
fair trial when a juror obtains her seat by lying about
family members' history of involvement with the criminal
justice
system."
United States v. Colombo:
This appeal
principally concerns a juror's alleged
misconduct. It is claimed that one
member of the jury that
convicted appellant deliberately violated her oath
during
the voir dire by failing to disclose that her brother-in-law
was a
government attorney and that she did so in order to
sit on this case. We remand
for a finding of fact as to
whether her brother-in-law is a government
attorney. If it
is found that he is, appellant's conviction must be
vacated.
US v. Gonzales:
1. Julio Gonzalez
appeals from his conviction
and sentence imposed for conspiracy, cocaine
distribution,
and money laundering. On appeal, Gonzalez raises four
principal
issues. He contends that the district court erred
by: 1) overruling his
challenge for cause to a juror; 2)
barring him from presenting evidence going
to a defense of
duress and refusing to instruct the jury on duress; 3)
deciding a material element of the money laundering scheme
as a matter of
law--namely, whether a federally run sting
operation qualifies as a financial
institution for purposes
of the money laundering counts; and 4) admitting the
testimony of an accomplice who testified in exchange for
government leniency.
While we find the second and third
issues troubling, we reverse on the basis of
the first.
Hard v. Burlington:
1.Thomas Hard
appeals from a jury verdict
awarding him compensatory damages for injuries
suffered
while working for Burlington Northern. He urges that jury
misconduct,
an inadequate damage award, and a verdict
against the weight of the evidence
require a new trial. We
remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing
on
the issue of juror misconduct. [...]
3. After trial, Hard's attorney
learned that juror Donald
Fraser and his father were former employees of
Burlington
Northern or its predecessor, Northern Pacific Railroad. He
moved
for a new trial on grounds that Fraser concealed the
identity of the former
employer during voir dire and
introduced extraneous and prejudicial information
into the
jury's deliberations. He presented the affidavits of three
jurors
stating that during deliberations Fraser made
statements regarding Burlington
Northern's settlement
practices. The court refused to consider the affidavits,
finding that they were excluded by Federal Rule of Evidence
606(b) and were
the product of improper post-verdict
interrogation. Hard v. Burlington Northern
R.R., 618 F.Supp.
1463, 1465-68 (D.Mont.1985). The court also refused to hold
an evidentiary hearing. It then denied Hard's motion for a
new trial. Id. at
1468.
Casanas v. Yates:
On June 17, 2008,
Petitioner Paul Casanas, a
state prisoner incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State
Prison,
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging three
claims
based on allegations that the trial court improperly
investigated Juror Number
Five's alleged misconduct and
improperly imposed the upper term sentence.
Respondent filed
an answer and Petitioner has filed a traverse. Having read
all the papers filed by the parties, the court DENIES the
petition. The court
grants a certificate of appealability on
two of Petitioner's
claims." [...]
The state appellate court summarized the facts regarding
this claim as follows: [...] the jury foreperson reported to
the court that
Juror No. 3 had admitted to having discussed
the case with an outside party.
The prosecutor, defendant
and defendant's counsel were all present. The judge
asked
the foreperson to elaborate, and he explained: "In the
process of our
deliberating about the counts for--I believe
it's two, three, and four, sex
with an under-age individual,
the--one of the jury members stated that this
weekend he had
a discussion about a buddy of his. And in the process of
relating his thought to us about the charges, he said that
his buddy said,
'Well, remember when you were seeing Becky?
You've got to think of it that
way.' [¶] And in that case,
he stated that the jury member was 22 and
the--Becky was 17,
which means that--which implied to me that he had, in some
ways, revealed some of the details of the case and was using
external sources
to figure out what was going on and reach a
conclusion."
Gibson v. Clanon:
This is an appeal
from a judgment of the
District Court for the Northern District of California
denying petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. The two
petitioners, Gibson and
Justice, are presently serving life
sentences in California state prisons for
the 1973 murder
conviction of a prison guard at San Quentin. Gibson and
Justice allege that the trial jury that convicted them
impermissibly relied
upon facts that were not in evidence.
In doing so they claim they were denied
their constitutional
right to a fair trial. The district court, which reviewed
the state court record, but did not take additional
evidence, concluded that
any error that may have occurred
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Our
review of the
historical facts in this case convinces us that there is a
reasonable possibility that the jury's consideration of
facts not introduced
into evidence contributed to the jury's
verdict. Accordingly, we reverse the
judgment.
[...]
2. At one point during the deliberations, Juror Colin
Grist went to an encyclopedia to confirm his belief that
blood type "AB" was
rare. He reported his findings back to
other members of the jury. Jurors
Chapman, Gauger and Cox
remembered some comment by Grist. Grist was unsure
whether
he made the comment before or after the balloting on
Justice.
3.
Another juror, Mona Gauger, stated that while the jury
was considering
Kranzelic's testimony she had commented on
the dosage of morphine. Other jurors
were unsure what effect
the morphine may have had on Kranzelic, which Gauger
interpreted as a request for more information. She then
consulted a medical
encyclopedia from which she apparently
concluded that the morphine dosage was
too small to have
affected Kranzelic's perceptions. At least eight other
jurors remembered some comment by Gauger, but there was some
disagreement as
to exactly what she had said.
4. In both cases there were apparently some
comments in
the jury room to the effect that the jury should not
consider this
evidence.
Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv.
Co.:
1. This is one of several appeals before this
panel relating
to the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation. The
subject of this appeal is whether
the $5 billion punitive
damages verdict against Exxon, and the $5,000
punitive
damages award against Hazelwood, should be set aside because
of
irregularities during jury deliberations. We affirm the
district court order
that it should not. This decision goes
only to the motion to vacate the
judgment for irregularities
during jury deliberations. It does not purport to
decide the
issue of the amount of damages, compensatory and punitive,
awarded
to the plaintiffs.
[...]
6. One juror, Juror B, testified that the bailiff
motioned him aside as he came to deliberations one morning
and "said something
about, you know, you guys, you're really
having problems with her, or something
like that, pulled his
gun out, took a bullet out and said maybe if you put her
out
of her misery or something." Juror B said he might have told
the jury
foreman about it, but told no one else, and "it
really shook me up." Juror B
perceived the remark as a
tasteless joke rather than as a threat or serious
suggestion. The bailiff testified under oath that "I haven't
heard anything so
absurd in my life. Nothing like that ever
came from me." The district judge
ruled that "the court is
not convinced that the incident ever occurred," but
that if
it did, it did not warrant a new trial, because Juror A
never learned
of the communication, and Juror B and the jury
foreman did not understand it to
be a threat directed at
them.
7. The United States Marshal in Anchorage,
John R.
Murphy, directed the investigation of the alleged incident.
Juror B
passed a lie detector examination, and the bailiff's
lie detector examination
"indicated deception" in the
opinion of the polygraph examiner, Investigator
Robert
Sheldon. [...]
United States v.
Perkins:
1. Appellant Paul C. Perkins was convicted of conspiracy
to
obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3711 and
obstruction of
justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503.2
Perkins appeals, claiming that
the indictment was invalid,
that the evidence was insufficient to support the
jury's
verdict, and that the trial court erred in denying him a new
trial on
the basis of jury misconduct. We find that, because
of juror misconduct,
appellant is entitled to a new trial;
therefore, we reverse and
remand.
[...]
46. Appellant filed post-trial motions for acquittal and
for a new trial, together with affidavits stating that at
11:00 p.m. on the
evening that the verdict was announced he
received a telephone call from one
juror and that two days
later he received a call from another juror. Both
jurors
indicated that the verdict was not their verdict, that they
had been
pressured by the other jurors to vote for
conviction, and that they succumbed
to this pressure because
they were physically and mentally exhausted. One of
the
jurors also reported that a fellow juror who had been
"especially
committed to return a 'guilty' verdict" had said
that he knew Paul Perkins and
had served on "some committee"
with him. In a subsequent call to appellant's
counsel, this
juror related that the juror who said that he knew Paul
Perkins
also said that he knew where Dr. Scanks lived and
"took issue" with defendant's
testimony on this matter. The
two jurors sent letters to the trial judge
expressing their
belief that the verdict was not their verdict.
[...]
71.
Appellant Perkins alleges that there were two
instances of juror misconduct in
the course of his trial,
each of which requires a new trial: (1) juror Goad
withheld
information during voir dire; (2) juror Goad injected
extrinsic
evidence into the jury's deliberations. We find
merit in both
claims.
(See 48-70 in US v.
Perkins for quite an amusing case of a
juror's inability
to remember his
prior court cases.)
About Seagate Tech and In re Velvin R.
Hogan I couldn't find anything. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
They quote the "Apple v. Microsoft" opinion back at them
about their last effort to reserve functional aspects of
software to themselves.
I had to chuckle. The irony is soooooo delicious. It's like
saying "You were wrong last time, and you're still wrong this
time."
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
Irony goes here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
especially the final non-highlighted paragraph... in fact all of it is
dynamite...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Torinir on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
I wonder if this will affect whether Judge Koh even gets to preside over the
second case between Apple and Samsung.
---
Gaming like it's going out of style.
West/Zampella vs Activision should be covered on Groklaw. :o[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
I have sooo many questions...
1. If a new trial is granted, what does that do to Samsungs
efforts to get the preliminary injunction vacated? I mean
isn't a new trial like a reset? So if the jury's verdict
doesn't stand doesn't that include the verdict that the
Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe? Wouldn't Apple have a
compelling argument that the injunction to should stand
based on this?
2. If it goes back for a new trial... would only the trial
stage have to be done again? Would anything else open back
up? Summary judgments, discovery? Or would it only be the
trial stage?
3. Is there any indication that Hogan wasn't truthful in
voir dire? Other than his promise to follow instructions?
What I mean is, does anyone see any indication that he
attempted to hide anything from his past? Or hide a bias he
might have?
I understand that he did not follow instructions but did
exactly what he was instructed not to do. However, I also
believe it may not have been his intent to do so. In other-
words I am not prepared to believe that as he sat in voir
dire and answered the questions that he was thinking, I'm
going to do exactly what the judge told me not to.
I do not even believe that he realized that he was doing it
when he was doing it. i think he just got caught up in
things. I'm even willing to believe that had another juror
pointed out what he was doing and said, "We're not suppose
to do that." He would have modified his behavior. This may
not be true... but I'm generally like to believe the best of
people unless they prove to me that I should not (SCO).
So I'm wondering, is there any indication that during voir
dire he hid anything from his past, about his beliefs, or
about his bias? If he did not, I think the issue of juror
misconduct may be difficult to show.
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|