or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by e_veritas

  It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy...
  Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???
  Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???   I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that...
  Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it. 
What USPTO?!? Apple didn't invent easing functions for moving objects in graphical programming? Well....DUH!!!!
  It looks like the court document you posted is from after Apple's counterclaim. I will have to review the initial claim by Samsung to see if design patents were referenced, but do not have time at the moment.   However, for the sake of argument, let's assume they DID reference design patents. How does one interpret a request to seek a declaration that their devices do not infringe as making that party the "accuser"? How is that request "accusing" anyone of anything? If...
That is not true. The issue of design patents were filed by Apple in their counter suit to Samsung. It is possible that Samsung's initial claims may be considered frivolous, but they were certainly not 'design patents'...   http://www.zdnet.com/apple-sues-samsung-in-the-uk-over-android-4010024342/     Edit: just saw that you posted above while I was writing this, but it should still apply. In addition, many analysts consider Samsung's suit to be "defensive" and in...
I think this ruling is brilliant and wish judges would/could do this in the US as well!   The notion that someone can go around suing everyone for everything, with the only risk to them being the loss of money spent in litigation is ridiculous. Rulings like this make sure that the accuser has some "skin in the game", and would go a long way from preventing frivolous lawsuits like "we own the rounded corner rectangle". Otherwise, we are simply left in the same scenario we...
Seriously...an article about the dangers of clicking links in a "work-at-home" email is news?...only on AI. You would either have to be living without the internet for the last decade or a complete idiot to fall for that one.   Fortunately, I just sent over my bank information to a lawyer in Africa who found a recently deceased relative that left me a substantial inheritance, so I have no need to click on those...
I agree. To me, the clarification on the '604 patent definition from the Appeals Court is of much more consequence than the reprimand for determining damages. Essentially, they are saying that since the '604 patent describes a unique search algorithm for each 'module' in the universal search, Android does not infringe since it uses the same algorithm for a few different types. This is very damaging for Apple using the 'Siri' patent in any future litigation.
New Posts  All Forums: