Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Actually it sounds like it's a little more complicated than that. Had PA been granted an injunction, and then negotiated a license specific to the ipods they perhaps could have gone and litigated again on different products, However they were instead granted damages, and the judge determined that those damages constituted payment for a license to the patents in perpetuity.
PA was not going to get an injunction against Apple. The legal criteria were not present. PA is not a patent troll company, but one consisting of the original inventors and patent owners. However, this company was never able to commercialize this patent and ceased to exist about 1998. They reincorporated PA in Texas two months before filing suit against Apple, likely because of the Texas bench reputation for favoring patent holders.
However, an injunction will not be issued unless it is proved that the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm, and the harm suffered could not be adequately compensated by money damages. Another criterion must be met for an injunction to be issued -- that the public interest not be disserved by an injunction.
I do not know if the plaintiff actually requested injunctive relief, but they certainly knew such relief would be highly unlikely. Thus, they must therefore have known their relief would be in the form of money damages.
PA asked for $85M but the court found that the typical value for such a patent would be closer to 1/10th that amount. PA's previous incarnation had shown that the naked patent had little value by itself (because they could commercialize it years before). Only when combined with other Apple innovations could the PA patent add value. The process here for determining damages is public (legal) knowledge, so he outcome should have been easily predicted.
Maybe it's just a case of 20/20 hindsight, but the plaintiff did not listen to their lawyers or the lawyers did a poor job of predicting the outcome of the trial in advance (a key skill attorneys must present).