http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257

The bottom line is, after a hearing today, there won't be any. The earlier adverse inference instruction that the magistrate ordered against Samsung has been dropped. And it was Apple that dropped it, when the judge gave them a choice to drop it or get an equal wording against Apple. And the lesson is, just because litigators know how to be super-aggressive, it doesn't always pay to act that way.

That means this is another failed prediction for FOSSPatents. Actually, three of them. First Florian Mueller wrote,1 when the magistrate issued the sanction against Samsung alone, that as a result Samsung now would have a credibility problem with the jury, which could be serious for Samsung. I corrected his misunderstanding of what was happening in this article, where you will find many more details. Mueller also called Samsung's subsequent motion for an equal adverse inference instruction "ridiculous", a motion "without merit", and one he predicted the judge would deny.2

Today he wrote that there would be equal adverse inference instructions against both Apple and Samsung, calling it a "surprising" development, but opined that Apple "may very well" win on appeal on this point.3 He wrote too soon, probably thinking that the judge's proposed order was final, missing the detail that the judge's proposed jury instruction was subject to a conference today. You can't appeal what you agreed to, as Apple did today.

Why keep pointing out his errors, you ask? Not for fun. Because it's not fun. It is, however, part of journalistic ethics to correct misinformation that get published. It's what journalism is for, to present the most accurate account that you can. And that sometimes means you have to correct what others have written.