You are here: Home → Forum Home → The Mac Observer Forums → Apple Finance Board → Thread
The case in the courtroom of Judge Posner
-
The judge tosses out the case of Apple v. Motorola.
Blames lawyers for trivial issues and obscure prose.
It sounds like its time for new lawyers. Apple v. Motorola
-
The judge tosses out the case of Apple v. Motorola.
Blames lawyers for trivial issues and obscure prose.
It sounds like its time for new lawyers. Apple v. Motorola
Just to clarify, the Judge didn’t toss the case, he said there is no need for a jury trial, injunctive relief can be decided by the judge so we still have the potential for a favorable ruling from the bench. -
FOSS Patents has so far been excellent with the patent wars/etc. coverage. The game isn’t over, they’re just playing by the judge’s rules.
Signature
The Summer of AAPL is here. Enjoy it (responsibly) while it lasts.
AFB Night Owl Team™
Thanks, Steve. -
The judge tosses out the case of Apple v. Motorola.
Blames lawyers for trivial issues and obscure prose.
It sounds like its time for new lawyers. Apple v. Motorola
Just to clarify, the Judge didn’t toss the case, he said there is no need for a jury trial, injunctive relief can be decided by the judge so we still have the potential for a favorable ruling from the bench.The story was modified —case is dismissed with prejudice (whatever that means).
BUT the last time says—no final judgment ???????
PED, some clarity please.
-
Looks like judge Posner is giving Apple a chance to argue for injunctive relief.
Via Foss Patents“I have decided to grant Apple’s request, made at the June?7 hearing, for ‘a hearing at which the parties could attempt to satisfy the eBay factors and do a traditional injunction hearing.’ The hearing will be held next Wednesday, June 20, in a courtroom, to be announced, of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse, at 10?a.m. Each party may argue that it would be entitled to injunctive relief as to its patent or patents were the other party found to have infringed. The parties may submit briefs, if they wish, no later than the close of business on Monday, June 18. The parties should be prepared to address the possibility of substitution for an injunction of an equitable decree for a reasonable royalty going forward. They should indicate any evidence in the existing record (for it is too late to supplement the record) bearing on the question of injunctive or other equitable relief. And if Motorola means to argue for injunctive relief it should be prepared to address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis.”
