decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Yes, it could be anybody | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yes, it could be anybody
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT
My guess is that they are waiting for the updated website statement
on Saturday before next action. (Assuming Apple do post it then).
If the website statement is fully compliant with the court ruling,
I think Samsung might consider whether nitpicking on the anonymity
of the paper ads is counter productive from a PR perspective. All
the media reports make claim that it was from Apple, so in a sense
it has done some of its job imo. If Samsung complain and the court
disagrees, it might appear churlish and Apple would have some face
saved. On the other hand, if the Appeals Court agrees that it's
non-compliant...Samsung may consider a bit of negative vibes a risk
worth paying and sales of popcorn will skyrocket.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )