|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 09:24 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections Thread Here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Corrections Thread Here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 07:55 AM EST
- Corrections Thread Here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 07:59 AM EST
- confusing quote blocks - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 09:43 AM EST
- it's -> its - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 10:23 AM EST
- UK trial, patent vs. registered design - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 12:33 PM EST
- 2144 - Motion to Compel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 09:14 PM EST
- Difficult-to-parse sentence, beginning "ApplevSamsung-2126Ex13.pdf" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 01:48 AM EST
|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RIAA Hammers Google With DMCA Takedowns In Six Strikes Prelude - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM EST
- So now we know the Beast n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 10:12 PM EST
- Six Strikes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:48 AM EST
- Hard to prove - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 05:32 PM EST
- Congrats Inuss... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 10:51 PM EST
- Oprah Tweets Love for Surface, from an iPad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 02:22 AM EST
- Microsoft wants to denigrate your iPhone and Android again - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 02:44 AM EST
- China Tightens Copyright Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 03:23 AM EST
- Is Webkit the new IE6? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 03:39 AM EST
- Jacob Nielsen: Windows 8 — Disappointing Usability for Both Novice and Power Users - Authored by: macrorodent on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 05:56 AM EST
- My new laptop is a Samsung - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:27 AM EST
- Why Google 'vertical' search shouldn't face antitrust action - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 12:22 PM EST
- WikiLeaks: EU orders new legislation to regulate credit card companies ability to refuse service - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 01:58 PM EST
- Analysts turn negative on Windows 8 prospects - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 02:04 PM EST
- If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 03:59 PM EST
- Question for gibus about streaming the Santa Clara conference - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 06:44 PM EST
- Look Who Works For Apple! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:13 PM EST
|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 09:26 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 09:27 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 12:37 AM EST |
...one of the exhibits that Apple would prefer the court to block,
is a deposition earlier this month of Marylee Robinson, who opines as an expert
for Apple, kind of stepping into the shoes of Terry Musika...
If
you have to object to the testimony of one of your own experts, things cannot be
going well. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 12:45 AM EST |
If the record is closed should the injunction only apply to products that
existed when the record was still open? I.e., no injunctions for the Galaxy S II
(T Mobile) (SGH-T989) or the Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (SPH- D710)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 04:06 AM EST |
Apple doesn't seem to have sued LG yet
Counter argument would be that LG was never a threat to Apple.
But it looks to be something from a behind the scene agreement for not raising a
lawsuit over Prada!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TonyM on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 06:04 AM EST |
Interesting that there is reference to a UK case. What weight do US courts give
to non US precedents?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 09:40 AM EST |
Does anyone else see the parallels between this case and SCO v. iBM?
Judge treats plaintiff like they have a case, and eventually realizes it was all
smoke and mirrors...
FYI, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple asking the judge to recuse herself
for attending that conference.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 09:41 AM EST |
It doesn't help that 2145 is 404 (yes, really) which makes
it hard to be sure, but based on the style, I think that the
quote block beginning with "A. The court can and should
interpret the Damages Verdicts and correct errors is from
one document (2145? Definitely not the Reply [2031] linked
just above the quote block), whereas the next quote block
(beginning "Apple also objects") is from some other document
(by Apple?) Which document?
If that guess is right, then the footnotes 11 through 13 are
part of the wrong block quote.
If Samsung's lawyers really wrote the "apple also objects"
paragraphs, they have just produced some of the worst legal
writing (unclear and unhelpful to their cause) that I've
ever seen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:52 AM EST |
That seems to go against the intent of patents:
Getting ideas (protected) into the open for others to build on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 03:59 PM EST |
Easy does it.
Especially with all this 'breakneck pace'
innov^H^H^H^H^Hlitigation.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|