|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:54 PM EST |
Yes once more the "Media" gets it wrong and Groklaw calls it as it
is...and people wonder why I don't bother reading the "other guys"
when it comes to Tech and the Law![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Judge Koh Reduces Apple Damages Award; Orders New Trial on Damages re Certain Products in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 05:09 PM EST
- Actually, ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 05:35 PM EST
- Actually, ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 07:33 PM EST
- Actually, ... - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:36 AM EST
- Actually, it's not necessary - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 03:26 AM EST
- Actually, ... - Authored by: TerryC on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 10:19 AM EST
- Actually, ... - Authored by: mcinsand on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 10:41 AM EST
- Judge Koh Strikes a balance - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 12:54 AM EST
- Genius or Not? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:04 AM EST
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:57 PM EST |
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 07:34 PM EST
- Here he is now - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 09:36 PM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: cassini2006 on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:35 PM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 11:28 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- No - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 04:25 PM EST
- Here is a link that might help..... - Authored by: dacii on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:21 PM EST
- No - Authored by: AntiFUD on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:38 PM EST
- No - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 09:26 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 08:01 PM EST
- No - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 09:25 PM EST
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 09:46 PM EST
- Yes - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 01:39 AM EST
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 02:53 AM EST
- LVM - Authored by: artp on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 11:18 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 02:01 PM EST
- USB disks, Knoppix and DD - Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:53 PM EST
- imho, dont use lvm on laptops - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 07:58 AM EST
- I agree with you - Authored by: jbb on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 07:54 AM EST
- I agree with you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 03:30 PM EST
- I agree with you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 11:16 PM EST
- It has to be user-specific keys. - Authored by: cassini2006 on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:04 PM EST
- "This is all a huge waste of time." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 07:20 AM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:42 AM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: luvr on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:16 PM EST
- Canadian Government Introduces Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Compliance Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:09 PM EST
- Again java exploit - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 04:54 PM EST
- MPEG LA newspick - Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 12:53 AM EST
- "Oracle ports DTrace to Oracle Linux" Proprietary? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 12:38 PM EST
- Beware Issa probe on Swartz - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 03:25 PM EST
- Random tweets in newsfeed - Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:36 PM EST
- Flash memory issue forces Curiosity rover into safe mode - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 05:36 PM EST
- Rothken: We look forward ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 11:44 PM EST
- Steve Mann: My “Augmediated” Life - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 07:13 AM EST
- The Chromebook: A great second computer (for PJ) - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 07:25 AM EST
- Life Inside the Aaron Swartz Investigation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 04:23 PM EST
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:57 PM EST |
Violators will be forced to watch 100 hours of Lawrence Welk.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic Only - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 05:38 PM EST
- Off Topic Only - Authored by: lnuss on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:01 PM EST
- I know a better show... - Authored by: Kilz on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:32 PM EST
- Ultimate Punishment.. unishment... shment... ment... ent... - Authored by: MDT on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 07:48 PM EST
- Microsoft: We can update Office-by-subscription every 90 days - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 10:15 AM EST
- Judge for hire? Response from clerk of Sir Robin Jacob - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:07 PM EST
- ACTA Back From the Dead - Zombie Canada Complies - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 01:41 PM EST
- Why Apple’s Lightning AV adapters are expensive - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:38 PM EST
- Orlowski admits to expressing an opinion - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 12:05 AM EST
- Alternative Dispute Resolution Gone Wrong - Very, Very Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 12:39 PM EST
- Hoth Demystified - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 05:14 PM EST
- Hoth Demystified - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 05 2013 @ 03:10 AM EST
- Only amateurs attack machines; - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 05:27 PM EST
- "Copyright lawyer" sues defence lawyers, bloggers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 09:22 AM EST
- If Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks are guilty, then so is the New York Times - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 12:56 PM EST
- Some one is pushing his luck .... - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 01:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:58 PM EST |
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 05:18 PM EST |
Please post corrections in this thread.
It may be helpful to summarize the correction in the title.
For example
acknwledged >acknowledged[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 05:24 PM EST |
So how much does a trial like this cost by now? Is it only the lawyers who are
lining their pockets with money ultimately paid by public customers anyway?
$500K is hardly a deterrent either for that matter - whilst to you or me it
might mean a house, to the companies, ceo's, and lawyers involved it's barely
more than a rounding error.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:07 PM EST |
Eh? Some do, some don't? What Apple product does the original Tab 7"
infringe upon, apart from the iPad Mini that came out nearly 2 years later after
the trial started? The one Steve Job even laughed at as nothing Apple would do
because you'd need sandpaper for your fingers to use.
I'm really confused, as the scroll/icons/everything about the Tab doesn't match
what Apple claims, how on earth is THIS product infringing? (well, all of them
obviously)
This really does appear like it's throwing a HUGE amount of ammo back to Samsung
to admit that the jury made a whopper of a mistake, and surely now they can say
"we're glad it's admitted that the jury messed up, but we disagree with the
court how much, and that a trial is ok for some products and not the others is
obviously a mistake, as you yourself say you can't work out the intent of the
jury. So there's really no other course of action than to throw this
out/restart the trial with a fair jury, and.. dare we say, a judge who allows us
to submit evidence to disprove claims?'
It's that whole 'products before the iphone/products after' slide that annoys me
so much that surely Samsung can say 'Apple products before the Samsung Galaxy
Tab/products after' to show how ridiculous it was.
/wanders off shaking head, knowing this is going to drag on forever with Apple
unable to admit ANY loss of face here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:12 PM EST |
All of the noise that we've heard to date will be but a tiny spark as
compared to the FIRESTORM this ruling will cause. Pro-Apple
bloggers
are going to totally freak out over this. A lot of lawyers are going to
freak
out as well, they depend upon jury rulings standing up.
I'm quite sure
that Judge Koh has learned a lot since taking this case on,
and that she can
justify this ruling. Whether it will stand on appeal of course
is another
issue, but the judge has just indicated that she is no longer
willing to be a
doormat, and that litigants appearing before her court had
better
behave.
This is going to be
fun.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:26 PM EST |
I'd be interested in commentary about how these changes match
up with the errors that the foreman persuaded the jury to
make from people who tracked the intimate details better than
I did. Do these changes rescind those errors? (In which case
it would look to me like the judge took note of that, but
didn't approach the problem directly.) Or is it an entirely
different set of errors?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:33 PM EST |
May we construe that as advice to Jury foreman
Velvin Hogan to take a hike?
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:35 PM EST |
Has there been any rulings on what happens to the part of the
damage that was calculated over patents that were considered
invalid? Samsung can't be paying damages over those![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 08:44 PM EST |
And here's the reaction from the Apple fan boy press. I've never read the
Apple oriented press before, so I just typed "mac news" into Google and took
results from the first page. I've helpfully categorised the stories for you by
saying whether they quote Fosspatents as a source, and if user comment posts
claim that this result was all due to corruption on the part of the judge.
It's a bit sobering to read stories which regurgitate PR releases
disguised as blog posts as "news". Some of the people commenting on the story
are taking this quite badly and seem to think the only reason for this outcome
is because Samsung paid off the judge. That does little for their credibility
and it tells you the value of keeping a cool head when commenting on a subject
that you care about.
Appleinsider
- Link: Appleinsider
- Quotes Fosspatents:
Yes
- Comments claim corruption:
Yes
Macdailynews
- Link:
Macdailynews
- Quotes Fosspatents: Yes
- Comments claim corruption:
Yes
The article says their summary of the story is: "Crime
pays. Very handsomely. Remember that now,
kiddies."
Macrumors
- Link: Macrumors
- Quotes Fosspatents:
Yes
- Comments claim corruption:
Yes
Macworld
- Link: Macworld
- Quotes
Fosspatents: No
- Comments claim corruption: No, but one
claims that "they're out to get us".
It's quite
interesting to see that Apple fans are taking this case quite seriously. If the
damages get further reduced, a number of them might go into full "froth and
rage" mode.
It's also a bit disheartening to see that some web sites
are still quoting FM. Event sites like "The Register" seem reluctant to touch
him anymore, although the fact that people post comments complaining about it
when they do may have something to do with that. I suspect though that these
Apple oriented sites are willing to quote anything that suits their agenda
regardless of what they think of the source.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 09:32 PM EST |
There has been news that some patents were invalidated
during/after the trial. How does that impact this
verdict/appeal/retrial? Has that been factored into this
already?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 02:25 AM EST |
Even the shaving of $4-500 million off the ridiculous award does not make the
entire award any less ridiculous.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ah but .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:26 AM EST
|
Authored by: mpellatt on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 03:37 AM EST |
This is probably the first ruling from the Court in this
case that I've read in
some detail. Without re-reading it,
it does seem particularly clearly- and
well-argued. I also
liked this slapdown:
"As in First Alliance
Mortgage, these numbers are “to the
dollar;” it is thus quite apparent how the
jury arrived at
them. Indeed, Apple does not dispute this inference in its
opposition, relying instead on the purported
impermissibility of acknowledging
what is apparent."
I seem to remember Samsung often pointing out
that Apple's
"letter of the law" position was wrong measured against the
facts, but not being allowed this. At last, Apple have been
called on this
positioning by the Judge. Big time. Karma.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 04:01 AM EST |
Is the new trial purely about determining damages, or will it be wind things all
the way back to determining whether the patents are valid and the devices
infringe?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:35 PM EST |
I've kind of lost track. Are there any more motions pending or can a final
judgment be entered?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 01:36 PM EST |
PJ (and MW), we thank you for doing your utmost to fulfill this duty, regardless
of who screams or smears you.
The louder they scream, the better job you are doing. Don't feel that you have
to defend your "honor" from these sleezeballs, we know you always seek
the truth and tell it like it is.
Keep up the great work!
I totally agree that if you can't compete using truthful arguments, you should
not win. All this lying and obfuscation we see in courts might be effective, but
I do believe what goes around comes around, and one day it will bite the liar.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 07:46 PM EST |
Random question, what does "appellate review" mean in:
<blockquote>
The parties are encouraged to seek appellate
review of this Order before any new trial.
</blockquote>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 07:30 AM EST |
the entire trial and judgement should have been thrown out...
a retrial ordered and the jury foreman dragged in irons before the court on
contempt charges...
that idiot foreman wasted everybody's time, so he should have to face the
penalty...
perhaps juries might take their duties seriously if they knew that they could
face jail for winging it to get off early before the weekend.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|