Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 900

NOTICE by Apple Inc.(a California corporation) Translations of Foreign Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40, #41 Exhibit 41, #42 Exhibit 42, #43 Exhibit 43, #44 Exhibit 44, #45 Exhibit 45, #46 Exhibit 46, #47 Exhibit 47, #48 Exhibit 48, #49 Exhibit 49, #50 Exhibit 50, #51 Exhibit 51, #52 Exhibit 52, #53 Exhibit 53, #54 Exhibit 54, #55 Exhibit 55, #56 Exhibit 56, #57 Exhibit 57, #58 Exhibit 58, #59 Exhibit 59, #60 Exhibit 60, #61 Exhibit 61, #62 Exhibit 62, #63 Exhibit 63)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

Exhibit 8

Commercial Law
DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEINE, February 24, 1962. – TRANSPORTATION
CONTRACT, CREATION, TRAVELERS, CERTAIN AND NON-EQUIVOCAL ACCEPTANCE,
PUBLIC TRANSIT, BUS, TAKING OR POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE.
When dealing with public transit where the price for the place is not paid prior to
boarding the vehicles and where the service is undertaken on public roadways, without
specially enclosed and furnished access premises, the stoppage of the vehicles constitutes
a permanent offer, and, for the transport contract to be concluded, it is solely necessary
for the traveler to demonstrate his acceptance in a certain and non-equivocal manner,
which can result, for example, from any taking of possession whatsoever of the vehicle;
with the transporter only being able to retract their offer and prevent the acceptance of the
traveler by a formal and timely (1) refusal of access;
The bus ticket collector may only demonstrate this revocation of the offer, and
thereby the refusal to admit a traveler, by placing the chain which blocks access from the
platform prior to giving the departure signal (2);
The transporter is responsible for the accident that occurs to the traveler who
having placed foot on the platform of the bus suffers a fall subsequent to a sudden startup of the vehicle (3).
(TRIVIAUX SPOUSES VS. R.A.T.P.). – Of February 24, 1962 – District Court of the
Seine, 4th Chamber – Messieurs Debenest acting as President – Martin, Secretary –
Cassou, Alternate – Demont and Augendre, Attorneys.
NOTE – (1, 2 and 3) Comp. Grenoble, April 14, 1958 (D. 1958. 414, note of R.
Rodière). – In the sense of the ruling analyzed here above, See Paris, June 24 1959 (D.
1959. 551; S. 1960. Section 4). – See also Republic [Illegible] and up-dated, See Contrat
de transport [Transportation Contract], No. 437.