|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:03 PM EST |
Criminally or for the cost of a new trial??? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Can he be charged ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Can he be charged ? - Authored by: squib on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:36 PM EST
- Can he be charged ? - Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:51 PM EST
- bankrupted juror pays for entire trial? seems unlikely to be worth even attempting - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:01 PM EST
- Hold the retribution - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:07 PM EST
- Don’t be silly - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:23 PM EST
- Can he be charged ? - Authored by: squib on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:50 PM EST
- Only time I've ever hear of it is jury tampering - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:56 PM EST
- Can he be charged ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 07:29 PM EST
- Can he be charged ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM EST
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:12 PM EST |
, [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:43 PM EST |
Apple argues (Opp. 1-2) that Samsung waived
its juror bias
argument by failing to make it sooner, but
Samsung could not reasonably have
ascertained Mr. Hogan’s
dishonesty before the jury’s verdicts. As Samsung has
made
clear and Apple cannot dispute, Mr. Hogan made public
statements after
the verdicts that so clearly favored Apple
that the press speculated about
their possible financial
ties.
Of all the speculations
made by the press, Samsung chose
to quote this one. I wonder if they really
think Apple
bought the juror? ...or is it just a dig at them to rattle
them?
Are we going to see Apple addressing this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:47 PM EST |
While Apple takes days to sell out iphones..Google took just
under 15 minutes ot sell out Nexus phones and Nexus tablets..
Hmm, Apple better hope those HTC patents you licensed are
valid..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:59 PM EST |
This is the big one we all discussed. Samsung had already
established via
the appeal's court that functional elements
had to be factored out. We had a
blog from some legal
analyst discussing this, who had been following the case,
and had noted in the end this had been at some point dropped
from the jury
instructions. There was must speculation on
how it got dropped, because it had
already been established
on record.
Second, Apple is wrong
that the jury need not
“factor out functional elements because that is a legal
issue for the Court.” Opp. 6. It is precisely because
“factoring out
functional elements” is a legal requirement
that the Court must instruct the
jury to do so before
deciding infringement, yet no such instruction was
given. Nor is functionality found only where
“overall designs” are
“dictated by function” (id.);
functional elements always must be “factored out”
as part of
the infringement analysis. Richardson v. Stanley Works,
597 F.3d
1288, 1292-93 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Note that though that
paragraph seems to be all about
Apple, it speaks directly to the judge about
her own
actions, or lack thereof actually, because she failed to
instruct the
jury on the need to factor out functionality.
Actually, if I recall, she did
make a stab at it with a
partial explanation with the effect of even further
trivializing functionality by its incompleteness.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:03 PM EST |
:-D
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:04 PM EST |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:07 PM EST |
:-|
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:17 PM EST |
Not sure about the other stuff yet, Its going to depend of what Apple is forced
to disclose.
Interesting times.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scav on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 05:45 AM EST |
That decision is getting to be quite useful.
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:33 AM EST |
I think that one thing that's notable about this filing is that Samsung isn't
having to argue for a hearing. Judge Koh already stated that she would hold a
hearing, and that frees up Samsung to talk about what needs to be discussed at
the hearing, not spending pages trying to justify the hearing in the first
place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:20 PM EST |
If Koh decides that there is enough evidence to require declaring a mistrial and
ordering a new one, is it possible for Apple to appeal against that order?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|