I get the feeling that judges, sooner or later, regret taking on Apple cases.   

They generate a lot of paperwork in requests and appeals, that have to be responded to. 

Microsoft vs Motorola:

Judge James Robart told both sides to stop using the court "as a pawn in a global, industry-wide business negotiation". 

Motorola vs. Apple:

"Judge Crabb initially expressed willingness to suggest such a rate.  But when Apple's lawyers wrote in a filing last week that they would reject her guidance if the rate ended up being higher than $1 USD per iPhone, she grew irate at the Cupertino company's apparent arrogance."

Apple vs. Samsung:

"A federal judge in California has sanctioned Samsung for destroying e-mail evidence in its ongoing patent infringement case with Apple."

Motorola vs Apple:

An ITC judge issues sanctions against Apple over counsel's misrepresentations. Judge Thomas Pender... imposed sanctions against Apple for its counsel's misrepresentation of facts during an opening statement and in a pre-hearing brief.

Apple vs Motorola:

'Judge Richard Posner stated that there was no point in holding a trial because it was apparent that neither side could show they had been harmed by the other's patent infringement.' 

Apple vs. Samsung:

"If Apple thought it could spin its way out of a U.K. court-ordered apology to Samsung, the iPhone maker needs to think again ... "I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Bloomberg quoted Jacob as saying. "That is a plain breach of the order."

Apple vs. Motorola:

"I deny the second half of Apple's motion (seeking prohibition of the deposition) as frivolous and the first half (seeking substitution) as untimely. I've had my fill of frivolous filings by Apple. "

I think the courts are catching on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

 

Apple vs. Samsung:

"A federal judge in California has sanctioned Samsung for destroying e-mail evidence in its ongoing patent infringement case with Apple."

 

 

Apple who initiated the lawsuit also destroyed email evidence. The Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal granted the adverse jury instruction against Samsung when Apple filed the email spoilation charges, but when Samsung filed the same motion against Apple, Grewal denied Samsung's motion stating the filing missed the *tentative* deadline, one day after Apple'd filed theirs.

Needlessly to say, this was an embarrassment to Grewal who clearly exhibited bias against Samsung. Koh later dropped the charges and both parties agreed not to pursue this further. 

I have a feeling Apple and Samsung will be in court for many many years to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

I get the feeling that judges, sooner or later, regret taking on Apple cases.   

 

They generate a lot of paperwork in requests and appeals, that have to be responded to. 

Hey, they're getting paid to do something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feynman 

I have a feeling Apple and Samsung will be in court for many many years to come.

Any disagreements won, lost or settled will be resolved at some point and a company will pay or not pay. Why this should concern any of us is largely immaterial. This is a game of lawyers.

Long-forgotten by most is the lingering issue of keeping certain documents secret and under seal in the first case, now being appealed. Judge Koh had already ruled  Apple and Samsung were not going to be able to keep much of their documentation out of public view but agreed to put that order on hold until both parties had a chance to convince the court it was wrong. In an order yesterday the Appeals Court said they will allow the media to also argue their side in support of Koh's ruling, that most of the documents should be revealed as part of the public's right to know.  

My personal guess? The Federal Circuit will make it a final order to open many of the claimed Apple and /or Samsung "trade secrets' and financial documents submitted in the case to media review. Apple and Samsung won't be happy. There's already been a lot of behind-the-curtain info discovered, much more than either party would prefer. I believe there's a lot more to come.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/03_-_March/U_S__appeals_court_will_let_media_argue_at_Apple_secrecy_hearing/