or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KDarling

    1) I have a job and a life. Obviously I cannot spend my entire time responding to every question.  Often I'm too busy to even notice responses, especially if the thread has gotten longer. (Is there some way on this forum to search for just responses to you?)   2) If someone is rude, I have no incentive to continue a discussion with them.  If they express a genuine interest, I'll try.   3) I date back to the early internet days, when everyone online was fairly...
  Yes, but as I wrote about in this post with the reasoning involved, willful infringement for damages requires both the jury and the judge.  To repeat the main precept:      
  The ironic thing is that the ITC used to be considered to be the fast path!   That aside, it's sad that they didn't just declare the patent invalid.  It's for having one translucent window on top of another, with one or the other window taking input.  Seriously, USPTO?   Forget examiners, judges and juries.  There should be an engineer peer review panel.
"We've always been at war with Eastasia!"   Oops. No, wait.  That could be going down the memory hole.
  Read closer, please. I did not say it was just to prevent others.  I said "not only for their talent, but to prevent others from using their tech."   Apple could've licensed Authentec and Liquidmetal products like others had been doing for years.  Instead, they took away the ability for anyone else to license the tech.  It's just Apple's style.  Some people would claim it was a smart move.   Apple fansites even often point it out.  For example, the WiFiSlam example came...
  Actually, Fingerworks was about opaque surfaces, so their patents (even most at Apple) are about touchpad surfaces... not transparent touchscreens.  Their tech was not necessary to create the iPhone or iPad, as evidenced by all the other touch devices designed and built without such knowledge.     The point is, while other companies were okay with everyone licensing such tech for years, Apple actually took the tech off the market instead of sharing it like everyone else...
  Often, such purchases are software companies which are composed of less than a dozen people.  That's why they're relatively inexpensive to buy.  You simply offer each person a buyout of a few million dollars apiece, in return for their IP and some time spent passing on their knowledge to your own employees.  Voila!  Everyone's happy.   (I know guys who have created startups using the latest hot ideas... with no intention of ever selling anything... simply for the...
    If you recall from this AI story, that's already been decided as "no" by the Court.   Treble damages has its own legal prongs that must be satisfied, which I previously detailed here and here.   Basically, it requires wilful infringement, which does not apply if the patent validity would be in doubt by an objective observer.     Mostly irreparable harm and monetary.  The dissenting judge agreed with why the lower court had denied the injunction:   "Here, because [the...
  Not sure why you're being rude, especially since I've been kind in return.  I've let you write dumb stuff all the time without jumping on you personally, such as recently as when you pretended to know something about aircraft compasses.   As for the jury's damage calculations, you're wrong (again).  That's not how it was done.      Thanks for letting us know that you commented on this topic without even having read the documents.   For everyone else who is interested in...
  Exactly.  After the eBay case, patent injunctions now require four prongs.   Citing the dissenting judge in the snowplow case:   "Prior to eBay, the presumption was that a patentee was entitled to a permanent injunction if he established that his patent was not invalid and infringed.   "eBay, however, rejected this approach, making clear that a permanent injunction should issue only if the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief is satisfied.  Under...
New Posts  All Forums: