|
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Please make the error and the correction visible
already in the title of your post, if possible.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
Discuss news picks here. Include a link to the
original article if you can, because they tend
to scroll off that narrow right column rather
quickly.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 7 Retailers Settle with FTC, Agree to Stop Spying on Up to 400,000 Computer Rental Customers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 05:56 AM EDT
- EU regulators set to charge Microsoft over breached deal - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT
- Apple too? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- BlueStacks and AMD Bring 500,000 Android Apps to Windows 8 - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- Go Daddy patents “announcing a domain name registration on a social website” - Authored by: Charles888 on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- 'Innocence of Muslims' Actress Files Bigger Lawsuit in Federal Court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- LG Display Files Patent Suit Against Samsung - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
|
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
Things that are relevant to the Groklaw crowd, but
not related to the current article, can be discussed
here. Make sure to stay off topic.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Samsung Galaxy S III rom updates - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- Apple-Google Maps Talks Crashed Over Voice-Guided Directions - Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT
- I guess I thought wrong. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 08:36 PM EDT
- Reseller - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 09:03 PM EDT
- No, you thought right. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Unxis - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- Ecuador beware, the US is after you - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT
- A Conversation With Randall Munroe, the Creator of XKCD - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 02:31 AM EDT
- Got an email from Microsoft... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 09:31 AM EDT
- RIM still hanging in there... - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 11:52 AM EDT
- Canada - Top court backs cyber-bullying protection over media rights - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT
- The impossibility of meritocracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- A river ran through it - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- A Conversation With Randall Munroe, - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT
- Selling used software in the EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
|
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
Transcriptions of Comes documents go here.
If you don't know what this is, please have a look
at the "Comes" section linked to from the main page.
This is a volunteer effort, and any help is appreciated.
(We are finally beginning to see the end of it.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
the redaction didn't avoid having enough information for people to figure out
the broad-brush topics of the issue, but nobody was surprised by those.
What they kept private are the details of the exact accusations of what was done
wrong.
This is enough to prevent people from changing their story (or being coached
into changing their story), and it's enough to avoid libel accusations against
them for blackening the name of the affected people.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
"but does not seek to bar the media from communicating with the
jurors..."
freedom of the press and all that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cpeterson on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
You might note that we here at Groklaw, and many others, had speculated about
what the accusations might be - but it was only speculation.
Now,
thanks to your filing, we know that we were correct in our speculation. That's
new information.
It might have been better had it remained
speculation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT |
Apple wants to suggest that Samsung has already been
talking to the jury
(and leaves the question in ones mind -
that perhaps they are seeking a little
collaboration in
their efforts to overturn the jury
verdict)
Apple notes that Samsung does not state
whether
Samsung has already contacted any of the jurors and
is thus seeking now to
bar Apple from an opportunity of
which Samsung has already taken
advantage.
Wow - way to twist it around! How do
they come to the
conclusion that "Samsung has already taken advantage" of the
opportunity contact the jury? It boggles the mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shachar on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
If the Court decides to review the damages award on a
product-by-product basis, judgment as a matter of law increasing damages for
some products to offset any reduction in other portions of the jury’s unitary
award;
From reading the actual reasoning (page 18), this is not
as outrageous as it first might seem. What Apple seems to be saying is "we do
not wish to reopen the damages amounts, but if Samsung does so, we have places
we think the jury found for a number that is too low as a matter of
law".
I think they are trying to make the case that the damages should
be left alone.
Shachar [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
They're already dead, the carrion crows are flying overhead.
The buzzards are circling ready to start their meals on the rotting, decayed
corpse of the ultimate product thieving company ever.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple is a has been, game over company - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- Apple is a has been, game over company - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- Apple is a has been, game over company - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- Plus - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Apple is a has been, game over company - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 11:08 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:58 PM EDT |
We have all discussed at length which of Hogan's
statements are the most
damning, but now that PJ has so
nicely laid them all out for us in one place,
something just
clicked in for me in the following
quote...
And so consequently, when we looked at the
source
code - I was able to read source code - I showed the
jurors that the two
methods in software were not the same,
nor could they be interchangeable
because the hardware that
was involved between the old processor and the new
processor
- you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old
system
and expect that it was going to work, and the
converse of that was
true
Previously when I saw that, I and I think others got
hung
up on where he was saying "nor could they be interchangeable
because the
hardware that was involved between the old
processor and the new processor",
etc, because as a Groklaw
reader I at least know a patent has nothing to do
with what
processor it runs on - it's in the claims, which are much
more
abstract and rarely if ever specify a processor or the
code that runs in
it.
Now, however, what jumps out at me was this "I was
able to read
source code - I showed the jurors that the two
methods in software were not the
same".
Here he was clearly acting as an expert witness. He
clearly
states he was not just applying his knowledge to
guide his own private
thoughts, but rather, he is exlaining
it all for the jury, and that is where he
crossed the line.
Undoubtedly the other jurors (with perhaps the exception of
one other) had no understanding of source code, and if they
approached any,
were constrained to look at it only with the
evidence presented to them. If
that evidence was
insufficient for them to form any opinion about that source
code, then they should have completely ignored it as any
basis for their
decision. Instead, the ever-helpful jury
foreman explained it all to them, and
most likely his
explanation would thereafter dominate their thinking instead
of their own instincts. For me, this one observation is the
smoking gun,
sufficient to invalidate the jury decision. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
An attorney friend explained to me that redactions
like in Samsung's JMOL motion could be due to impropriety of
submitting evidence in particular parts of the trial as it
could unduly influence a jury.
I suspect he is confused. The jury is already dismissed in
this case, and would a jury actually be privy to the entire
public record during deliberations?
He further suggested that redaction could also be to prevent
an appeals court from being prejudiced upon re-examination
of the record by exposure to illegally entered evidence.
Huh? Redactions hide the record from even the appeals court
justices?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:19 AM EDT |
I'm getting lost on all the coverage, but this seems to have more information
on his work history. I'm still wondering if there are more law suits around the
country that can be exposed, or do lawyer's have the low down on that through
their info services.
aN
ewDomain.net - Samsung, Apple, Velvin Hogan: TechNow with Gina Smith
28.08.12
http://anewdomain.net/2012/08/28/velman-hogan-who-is-he-app
le-samsung/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
Unless I'm missing something, the jury misunderstood or
misused the doctrine of equivalents in coming up with their
verdict.
As I understand it, and as described in the jury
instructions, the doctrine of equivalents is a means to find
infringement even if there is no literal infringement.
The jury foreman's reference to "interchangeability" implies
that he persuaded the jury that Samsung's PRIOR ART did not
invalidate Apple's patents under the doctrine of
equivalents.
But this seems to be a manifest error of logical reasoning
and has it exactly backwards. The doctrine of equivalents
is a SUFFICIENT CONDITION in order to find that a product
infringes (i.e. if conditions of interchangeability are
satisfied, then product infringes). It is not a NECESSARY
CONDITION that prior art must have (i.e. if conditions of
interchangeability are not satisfied, then prior art does
not apply). So the jury clearly misapplied the criteria
here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Slightly OT, but somes legal news from across the pond, where Apple had lost,
and are appealing against the Judge's order that they (Apple) must publish
retractions to the effect that Samsung did not copy them, in main-stream media
plus on Apple's UK web-site.
Note this little gem from Apple's lawyer:
"This
[the iPad] is a design about shape. You don’t make a non-infringing design by
making the same shape and decorating it."
Straight from the horse's mouth. So
it is ALL about sightly rounded rectangles after all, despite what numerous
Apple supporters had said that it is 'not as simple as that'.
Please sir, can I
patent a sphere next?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
Bought my expensive coffee today and noticed the local Star*bucks had two tip
jars out, one labelled Apple, one labelled Samsung. Thought this was funny,
tossed my change into the one on the left. Anyone else run into this? Seems
like a way of getting customers to tip more.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|