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
my take on it | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
my take on it
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST
Note:

Apple didn't say they'd refuse to pay a rate higher than $1. They said they
wouldn't contest a rate set at $1 or less.

There's a big difference between "I won't pay unless it's $1 or less!"
and "I'll pay the rate set by the court at the end of procedures, but if
the rate is set to $1 or less, I'll stop contesting it *now*."

Reading comprehension people. It's like PJ's claim that Apple complaining that
Samsung's attempt to *add* more testimony 17 hours before the hearing (see 2
articles ago) was *actually* Apple complaining that Samsung was trying to fix an
error.

The quote from Apple's filing:
<blockquote>The Court should deny Samsung’s motion for leave not only
because the requested relief is untimely and irrelevant, but because it is
nothing more than “a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s page limits” and an
attempt to cure Samsung’s failure of proof in its prior
declaration.</blockquote>

PJ's claim directly below that:
<blockquote>Apple claims Samsung is trying to correct a mistake, and there
is a long song and dance about how horrible Samsung is acting, trying to fix the
error.</blockquote>

Groklaw needs to get out of the editorializing business, and back into the
analysis and explanation business where it got its start.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 12:44 PM EST
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 )