|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:18 AM EST |
Based on possible responses to "This evidence, a judgment issued by the
England and Wales Court of Appeal..........
could not possibly be relevant ....... because it was not admitted at
trial."
To make a somewhat silly, hopefully funny, paraphrase:
A Practical approach
Samsung: We just discovered that there's evidence that our building is on fire
and we'd like a quick JMOL that we should go outside.
A Typical approach
Apple: That evidence wasn't introduced soon enough so it's irrelevant.
A "We can only hope for" approach
Court, to Apple: Well there's evidence and there's procedure. Given the
evidence, I say it's relevant and compelling, and I'm leaving. If you want to
follow procedure, feel free to stay and toast your marshmallows.
Praxis
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:18 AM EST |
It's not just the cases heard in the UK. It's the logic and clarity of the
judgements which were delivered in plain, unambiguous English. I seem to recall
that there was also reference to abundant prior art.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:16 AM EST |
Is this case only about what Samsung sells in the USA? Or
are damages based
on world-wide sales? I took that there
could be a rationalization behind
introducing the UK
precedent that it is needed to reduce damages at least for
phones sold in the UK market. (But maybe I am completely
wrong, and the trial
is only about what happens or is sold
in the USA.) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- *EU* precedent - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:48 AM EST
- UK precedent - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 02:10 PM EST
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM EST |
People aren't perfect, the laws that people write aren't perfect, and the courts
that weigh the laws aren't perfect. That isn't to say that they need to be
thrown out, but we need every mechanism that we can have to both minimize the
chance of error as well as to limit the scope of a potential error. An EU
ruling would have no legal weight in this court, just as it would be wrong for
this court to have any legal legal impact on an EU court (yes, I know about that
MS/Moto ruling). Truly boneheaded legal conclusions are rare, but, when they
happen, I am glad that their immediate damage radius is limited.
Then again, especially since the US legal system grew from European origins,
reading the EU court ruling could help this court a lot. With any complicated
problem, added perspectives can be of tremendous help when sorting through the
details. Even where we differ, those differences could just as easily firm up
our minds (when we disagree with a position's basis) or convince us that we need
to rethink our stance. The EU ruling is very relevant given the issues, our
legal systems have some common ground, but it is still a different court with
some differences in the approach.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 12:07 PM EST |
From the Supreme Court, Parker v. Flook:In reviewing earlier cases
applying the rule that a scientific principle cannot be patented, the Court
placed particular emphasis on the English case of Neilson v. Harford, Web. Pat.
Cases 295, 371 (1844), which involved the circulation of heated air in a furnace
system to increase its efficiency.
The English court rejected the
argument that the patent merely covered the principle that furnace temperature
could be increased by injecting hot air, instead of cold into the furnace. That
court's explanation of its decision was relied on by this Court in Morse:
"`It is very difficult to distinguish it [the Neilson patent] from
the specification of a patent for a principle, and this at first created in the
minds of the court much difficulty; but after full consideration, we think that
the plaintiff does not merely claim a principle, but a machine, embodying a
principle, and a very valuable one.
We think the case must be
considered as if the principle being well known, the plaintiff had first
invented a mode of applying it . . . .'"
I note that they paid
attention to the arguments rather than just accepting the opinion at face
value.--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 02:03 PM EST |
Not a lawyer but as I understand it a US court gives no weight to the decision
of a UK court but is free to give weight to the argument and logic of the court
if it thinks it is appropriate. This makes sense, if a strong argument is made,
it is a strong argument, and the fact it is expressed by a foreign court is
irrelevant. Obviously the context is different and the judge must interpret the
argument in the US contaxt.
I expect that some US newspapers/right wing politicians will flame any judge who
mentions a foreign court in the same way anything european gets distorted and
reported here in the UK. The judge would be wise to read and think about the UK
judgement but be careful what he says about it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|