Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 12:48 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-04-25
Apple has more injunctions still under enforcement, injunctions granted but not under enforcement because of circumvention, injunctions granted but mooted because product is no longer offered, injunctions granted but not enforced because of appeal, injunctions granted but later overturned, injunctions of any kind, AND jury verdicts than Samsung. It has the right to ask for a permanent injunction against Samsung as a final ruling in its US guilty verdict.
By any rational legal scorecard, Apple is "winning" resoundingly. No one with any skin in the legal battle, or a basic understanding of it, thinks winning/losing is predicated on preventing market access to competition. One can argue that the legal battle has no market value, but as far as Apple or its legal adversaries winning the meaningless battle: Apple is ahead by all objective measures of legal wins/losses.
Under appeal, the court will hear arguments before determining if she will allow the argument of jury misconduct. Which would result in a retrial. The jury verdict is "final" insofar as Samsung faces a huge burden to chip away at the infringement verdict or to achieve a mistrial. Characterizing this as an "investigation" is silly.
Claiming Apple is losing in the courtroom is irrational.