or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

@corrections : it's pretty obvious that you didn't read the Polaroid vs Kodak decision you just cited and, further, it doesn't even support your claims.In Polaroid vs Kodak, Polaroid asked the court to determine whether Kodak's infringements were "willful" and calculate appropriate damage award (ie, lost profit, lawyers' fee and willfulness penalty). The court used various legal analysis, such as market demand, competition, industry trend, marketing practices, and pricing...
 @boredumb : no amici is advocating for less patent protection. All they are saying here is that damage compensation should be proportional to infringed patents' importance and contribution to sales and profit, not their "entire profit" based on an esoteric legal statute designed for unitary products such as carpet, desk, or chair. This is not only hypocritical for Apple to demand Samsung's "entire profit" for three infringements while claiming that Ericsson's asking...
 @mike1 : I think Samsung's marketing expenses peaked in 2013 ($14B), when their sales and marketshare also jumped #1 from their high single-figure in 2010.  Making fun of Apple customers certainly worked for them.  I haven't really seen too many of those recently -- I think they need to do more of those. 
 Sure, and the email evidence has nothing to do with the design infringement (or "complete disgorgement") at issue here.   Samsung's emails were presented as evidence for Apple's trade dress claims, not design claims.  And that's after both Apple and Samsung had agreed not to bring any materials that might influence, or taint, the jury decision on Apple's non-trade dress claims (ie, design claims) for obvious reason.  note : while Koh allowed Apple to bring their evidence...
 @dasanman69 :  Well, it's either this or SCOTUS.  Samsung does have a fairly good case here and, if Samsung prevails, it's also likely to defend and benefit Apple in the long run (ie, $400M win from Samsung is nothing compared to what Apple might to have pay Ericsson if upheld).  CAFC has ruled in favor of some appropriate apportionment in previous cases, but, in the last Samsung appeal, they somehow decided not to deal with the design disgorgement (without any...
 This is nothing new.  I'm guessing Apple,Samsung, HTC, and Nokia phones must have saved at least dozen by now: "According to  9to5Mac, which reported the incident via AppleDaily, a Taiwanese man, identified by his surname Han, was shot during a bar fight on Monday. But lucky for him, a Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 was in his shirt pocket and served as a shield by stopping the bullet from penetrating through his chest. ...  According to the police, Xu shot Han from about 2-3...
 @fallenj : @sog35 and I have already been through this before.  Samsung's sales in China collapse in 3Q of 2014, not in 1Q of 2015 -- when Samsung slipped from 19% to 8%, or from #1 to #4 (or #3, #5 depending on whom you ask) and Xiaomi jumped to #1 out of nowhere.  Apple and Samsung were really never competing head to head in China -- Samsung (#1) was way ahead of Apple (#5) for most of the past 4 years, whereas now Apple (#1) is way ahead of Samsung (#4) in 1Q in...
Like I said, Samsung lawyer stated the outcome of the first trial during the damage-only re-trial, as a legal procedure. Use your common sense, it wouldn't make any sense to admit one's guilt, only to challenge it again in appeals. Your intellectual laziness is disgusting.
 @Brakken : what is "only under pressure of evidence"?  Samsung never admitted to this and, as we know from this ruling, it was part of the appeal Samsung challenged, though it was rejected.   I think you meant to say that Samsung's lawyer stated the result of the first trial during the damage-only retrial.  But it doesn't matter, you wouldn't know the difference anyway.
 @maestro64 :   Sure, I'm not saying that it is.  In Ferrari v Roberts, the main issues that the court addressed were : - Whether Ferrari's automobile designs have acquired secondary meaning;- Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Ferrari's cars and Roberts' replicas;- Whether the appropriated features of Ferrari's designs are nonfunctional; and- Whether the injunction granted by the district court is excessively broad. and the main argument Samsung brought...
New Posts  All Forums: