or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @tmay : You are still confused about the difference between trade dress and design patent lawsuits.   Again, as I explained earlier in different threads, trade dress deals with what non-technical average consumers perceive -- visual impressions, packaging, etc, and CAFC recently struck down Apple's trade dress win and remanded it for a re-trial.  There is no total disgorgment of profits in trade dress suits.  What we are talking about here is, specifically, design patents...
 @eightzero : hey, looks like we have a fellow SCOTUS watcher here.  So what did you find so screwy about Thomas's recent opinion (ie, Alice vs CLS) unanimously agreed by all justices?  Thomas is certainly no Scalia, but Scalia is in his own league. 
 @tmay : Let me repeat, this case at this point is all about Apple's design patents, or, specifically, their applicabilities and compensation.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's hardware, software, or ecosystem, as you falsely insinuate here. There is no "not entirely."  Google's argument about multitude of features in its amicus brief is intended to dilute the importance of "design patent" on which Apple's 2012 victory is based, and to give rationale for...
 @jkichline : you've watched this play out and still believe the SCOTUS is going to triple damages and make them pay for all legal fees?  LOL
 @tmay : the case at this stage isn't about the copying -- Apple's hometown jury already decided on that in 2012 -- but about appropriate apportionment and what can be design patented.
 @spamsandwich : why not?  We now have a legal precedent that allows LG to take away Apple's entire iPhone profit for a small design infringement.  That's more than LG's profit past several years (or perhaps a few decades).   It's risky, but the potential payout is huge!  Besides, it's not like Apple has elsewhere to go for display panels -- the Japanese are too busy closing down their shops and the Chinese aren't quite there yet.  
 @RobertC : I believe the Exynos M1 uses their first custom core called, "Mongoose," -- a code name created originally in response to Qualcomm's "Krait" core.  I guess if the new Exynos is as good as it appears in this 'unconfirmed' chart, Samsung won't have to back to Qualcomm for their flagship APs anymore. 
 @tmay : it doesn't matter whether the case goes to the SCOTUS or not.  We now have a new legal precedent that says a design infringement can lead to a total disgorgement of profit, even in highly complex, multicomponent products, and the appeals court just reaffirmed that particular interpretation of the law. Again, this is a relatively new interpretation of the law that may not survive, but only the SCOTUS can reverse that.   why torture yourself with clumsy...
 @tmay :  Sure, a rubber iPhone case whose design represents the entire value of the product (plus the cost of rubber) would be an unitary product.
 @tmay :   All cases are precedent setting in the American court system. This particular ruling matters a lot to the tech industry because the "disgorgement of total profit" damage typically applied to unitary product was never used in a case involving highly complex, multicomponent tech products.  This is exactly why all large tech companies are stepping up their support for Samsung. 
New Posts  All Forums: