Wonder if this investment banker looked up the news lately, because the bigger picture is, it is Apple who may actually settle the case, not Samsung.
The judge just threw out 9 out of the 10 serious design/technology patents out the door, of which the ruling should serve as additional ammo for thursdays' court hearing in Europe.
Wonder if this investment banker looked up the news lately, because the bigger picture is, it is Apple who may actually settle the case, not Samsung.
The judge just threw out 9 out of the 10 serious design/technology patents out the door, of which the ruling should serve as additional ammo for thursdays' court hearing in Europe.
DED added his own spin (as usual) to what the RBC analyst said. The analyst never said the settlement would be in Apple's favour. Just that this ruling might prompt a settlement.
Yes, and they draw on decisions elsewhere on occasion. You are free to choose not to believe me. Clearly you have made that choice.
Leave him. The concept of a legal precedent is elusive to some.
The idea that judges don't look at other jurisdictions for guidance (even if they are independently ruling in their little "fiefdom") is ridiculous.
Apple may win in some jurisdictions. But this ruling all shows, Apple may lose in more than a few places too. That's a far different story than some (like Florian Mueller) who had suggested that Apple's patent war chest was good enough to steamroll Android in every jurisdiction. Clearly, reality is quite different.
A bank doesn't "settle" with the thief that robbed them, nor should Apple.
you do realize that 9 of the 10 claims were thrown out right? And the bank analogy doesn't really work. Because, as has been pointed out numerous times on practically ANY sites providing commentary, patents are typically treated as "nuclear weapons" by practicing agencies (aka, real companies). Because it's basically impossible to operate in any competitive field and NOT violate patents somewhere. The point of most lawsuits is to force a settlement and they the violating party to pay you some fees, NOT to completely shut them or "send them to jail" like a bank would do with a thief.
Apple could be more likely to settle now because their case is (according to the judge presiding) 1/10th the strength it once was, actually less so since the patent they got the ban for was in a gallary application, something samsung can update before the deadline. What's worse, the judge said that he felt one of their patents (slide to unlock) would be found invalid if it went to court. That would hurt apple's chances against other manufacturers. If they settle, HTC/Motorola would still need to fight that charge.
Comments
Yet you assumed the Australian and German courts should do so in order to "harmonise".
I didn't say they 'should', I said the Australian courts 'had'. I did not mention Germany at all.
Courtrooms are little fiefdoms, judges hold all the power over their little domain.
Yes, and they draw on decisions elsewhere on occasion. You are free to choose not to believe me. Clearly you have made that choice.
The judge just threw out 9 out of the 10 serious design/technology patents out the door, of which the ruling should serve as additional ammo for thursdays' court hearing in Europe.
So why didn't the judge in the Netherlands take into consideration the previous findings of the Australian and German courts?
There goes that theory.
Because in the case of Germany were no findings? The injuction was automatic.
Wonder if this investment banker looked up the news lately, because the bigger picture is, it is Apple who may actually settle the case, not Samsung.
The judge just threw out 9 out of the 10 serious design/technology patents out the door, of which the ruling should serve as additional ammo for thursdays' court hearing in Europe.
DED added his own spin (as usual) to what the RBC analyst said. The analyst never said the settlement would be in Apple's favour. Just that this ruling might prompt a settlement.
Yes, and they draw on decisions elsewhere on occasion. You are free to choose not to believe me. Clearly you have made that choice.
Leave him. The concept of a legal precedent is elusive to some.
The idea that judges don't look at other jurisdictions for guidance (even if they are independently ruling in their little "fiefdom") is ridiculous.
Apple may win in some jurisdictions. But this ruling all shows, Apple may lose in more than a few places too. That's a far different story than some (like Florian Mueller) who had suggested that Apple's patent war chest was good enough to steamroll Android in every jurisdiction. Clearly, reality is quite different.
Unlike the German one which they only responded to a week before it happened.
So hows the Tab sales in Germany and Australia going?
Way to not read my post.
A bank doesn't "settle" with the thief that robbed them, nor should Apple.
you do realize that 9 of the 10 claims were thrown out right? And the bank analogy doesn't really work. Because, as has been pointed out numerous times on practically ANY sites providing commentary, patents are typically treated as "nuclear weapons" by practicing agencies (aka, real companies). Because it's basically impossible to operate in any competitive field and NOT violate patents somewhere. The point of most lawsuits is to force a settlement and they the violating party to pay you some fees, NOT to completely shut them or "send them to jail" like a bank would do with a thief.
Apple could be more likely to settle now because their case is (according to the judge presiding) 1/10th the strength it once was, actually less so since the patent they got the ban for was in a gallary application, something samsung can update before the deadline. What's worse, the judge said that he felt one of their patents (slide to unlock) would be found invalid if it went to court. That would hurt apple's chances against other manufacturers. If they settle, HTC/Motorola would still need to fight that charge.