|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
Agreed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
> should a court be able to impose a penalty which
> consists of "go confess to the court of another country"?
Umm, haven't we already had a strong whiff of that in
MS v. MotoMobi? Or rather the inverse.
It must be time for cases like this to be sorted by creating
a truly International ITC, but I'm having trouble finding a
place to locate it, suitable places like Tristan da Cunha,
or Isles St Paul et Amsterdam seem to be under the control
of belligerents. A bit of time on a desolate sub-antarctic
island with 2800bps might shake some of the stroppiness
out of recent court room divas.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
I'm having trouble seeing the effective difference between a claim of
"Apple publicly admitted we don't infringe because a UK court told them
to" and "a UK court found that we do not infringe."
Sure, in the minds of the public there is likely to be a difference, but not in
a court proceeding. I think (IANAL) even a US judge would focus on the foreign
court decision, not the penalty, when deciding whether to take any notice. If
Samsung tried to bamboozle the judge by showing the ad without the court order,
that could be easily remedied by a minimally competent Apple lawyer.
-O4W[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|