or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

"Viewing the smartphone as a single “article of manufacture,” the panel held that the statute (289) required it to award the total profit where the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers." Can you see a possibility, however remote, that this could negatively affect Apple in some future hearing? Can you imagine a court being "required" to to award the total profit from all...
You cited precedence as a factor often when you and I were discussing SEP licensing. It mattered to you then. Sadly I'm pretty sure I understand why you want to say it doesn't matter now.
In actual fact you are arguing that Section 89 DOES apply. I believe you may not have read it yet.
So for future cases involving smartdevices they should be considered simple devices, subject to profit disgorgement for design patent infringement despite the intent or level of it in your opinion. Intent won't necessarily matter and may not be something a "future judge' may think he can decide. You do understand that right? Once set precedent can be very difficult to overcome.
Does section 289 allow for "intent"? No sir it does not AFAIK. It's pretty cut and dried if you read it.http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=130046Seeing as it's an interpretation that will likely be used a precedent in other cases do you believe that the Amicus Brief is appropo?
Your opinion is just as relevant as anyone's here. You don't typically shy away from offering one. You've even offered opinions in this thread on why you think Google is involved*. Why avoid offering your opinion on my question now? Saying it won't affect the judge's decision and that's why you won't offer one is dodging.*which would have zero to do with the Oracle lawsuit as it doesn't involve design patents.
Sigh. . .So do they have a valid point, one you have some sympathy for, ignoring who the parties involved are? You're completely avoiding whether Section 289 concerning "articles of manufacture" and profits disgorgement should apply to smartphones (or tablets or smartwatches). Judges are concerned with the law. Whether the infringing party didn't mean to use/steal the IP may not matter to them as much as the fact of infringing.As for your comment about them "choosing the...
That still doesn't answer the question. In your opinion do the amici have a valid point that should be considered, ignoring the fact it's Samsung paying Apple rather than Apple paying someone else? Why do the other companies submitting their signatures on the brief have a concern in your opinion? They represent a pretty broad spectrum of the tech industry: Software providers, services, hardware manufacturers... it's not "Google vs Apple", far from it..No doubt there's...
But you're not saying what you think of the argument. Should smartphones be considered a "simple device" for the purpose of royalties and/or damages, or are they as the amici claim "complex devices". In past comments on the topic I think you've been more in agreement with the the argument the amici are making. Have you changed your opinions in the past few weeks or have I misunderstood what you thought was fair?
What would Facebook's interest be? How about eBay? Limelight Networks or SAS?Curious, did you read the brief? Do you think the "entire market value" argument they make has some validity? You did note that rather than argue Samsung is innocent they recognize Samsung did in fact copy some elements from Apple's iPhone. That's not being disputed at all by the amici.EDIT: If you hadn't had an opportunity to read thru it here's the link. I believe AI also included it in their...
New Posts  All Forums: