Nope. No stock at all in any tech except for a few shares of Qualcomm bought "back in the day". Probably the best investment I ever made too!
If you're not a personal investor (and not independently wealthy), then you do work for someone--clients, customers--even if you would like to think of yourself as "the boss."
Then perhaps a judge and a jury can be as easily convinced.
I can smell a rat just like you can, and there's no telling what discovery will dig up, so I don't see how you can say any particular outcome is more likely than not.
The purpose of damages is to make the victim monetarily whole. Thus, Samsung's profits are not relevant. Apple will argue profits, loss of customers. What might be interesting to compare is Samsung's profit (paid by Apple) to build Apple phone components, and Samsung's profits from building their own patent-infringing devices. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung made less money stealing from Apple than they would have made building the iPhones that Apple would have sold but for Samsung's misdeeds.
Hmmm, but the profit made by Samsung is attributed (at least partly) by intellectual property owned by apple so had apple been given the opportunity to license that property to samsung, it would have earned money. Since Apple wasn't even given that opportunity, I would think apple could argue for damages on samsung's profits as well.
They can't claim profit that they didn't make. That's illegal. If only part of the phone is infringing why should they pay the total profit? Take for instance the guy that invented intermittent wipers, and that Ford used without licensing the technology. Should have Ford paid him the entire profit for every car sold that had intermittent wipers?
Agree, but profits are what is used to determine how much damages you pay. If ford was able to sell more cars because of that feature and made lots of profits than that is what is used. To your example, if Ford made $100 profit on ever car sold with that feature and they were some how able to determine that the wiper feature was only $0.02 of the profit then the patent holder can only collect damages on the $0.02 times the number of cars sold. It does not work that way, and that is not what Samsung Lawyer is saying he is claiming in the statement that Samsung only made $5 profit on every phone in total. They can not say that software and design elements of their phone which the patents infringed only represented $5 of the total profits. I would like to see the calculation on that one especially when you are talking about rounded corners.
IF you sell something and make lots of profits on what you sell and you infringe on someone IP they can claim damages against the total profits of what you sold not just the feature unless you can show that feature is separately priced and sold, even then if that feature enables the total sales they they are all inconsideration.
I can smell a rat just like you can, and there's no telling what discovery will dig up, so I don't see how you can say any particular outcome is more likely than not.
Apple failed to prove it to a court despite all the discussions Apple and Samsung had well before it was decided a lawsuit was the only way to settle it. Yet you think it's a even or better chance that Rockstar, who's asserting IP that Samsung was highly unlikely to have been aware of before they may have used it in a product, will be more successful at proving willfulness? That's how I can say I believe a particular outcome is more likely than not.
Litigants attempt to claim willfullness in nearly every patent infringement case I've read. Perhaps every one of them I've seen, dunno for certain as I didn't pay that close attention. Proving it sure doesn't happen often and it's recently become harder than ever.
That's because the rules have changed First there has to be convincing proof that the infringer was using the claimed IP despite “an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” That's a simple question of fact and can be decided by a jury.
Then assuming that bridge gets crossed here's the part that changed and is no longer in a jury's hands. The owner of the patent has to show that subjectively the infringer was well aware of a high risk to using that IP (that it was “either known or so obvious that it should have been known”) and their defense for using it is unreasonable. For that a judge has to determine the defendants rationale at the time of infringement, how they arrived at their choice and what went into the decision.
So my opinion is willful infringement ain't gonna happen with any of these current Rockstar defendants. The odds are on my side that I'm right.
Comments
Nope. No stock at all in any tech except for a few shares of Qualcomm bought "back in the day". Probably the best investment I ever made too!
If you're not a personal investor (and not independently wealthy), then you do work for someone--clients, customers--even if you would like to think of yourself as "the boss."
Then perhaps a judge and a jury can be as easily convinced.
I can smell a rat just like you can, and there's no telling what discovery will dig up, so I don't see how you can say any particular outcome is more likely than not.
They can't claim profit that they didn't make. That's illegal. If only part of the phone is infringing why should they pay the total profit? Take for instance the guy that invented intermittent wipers, and that Ford used without licensing the technology. Should have Ford paid him the entire profit for every car sold that had intermittent wipers?
Agree, but profits are what is used to determine how much damages you pay. If ford was able to sell more cars because of that feature and made lots of profits than that is what is used. To your example, if Ford made $100 profit on ever car sold with that feature and they were some how able to determine that the wiper feature was only $0.02 of the profit then the patent holder can only collect damages on the $0.02 times the number of cars sold. It does not work that way, and that is not what Samsung Lawyer is saying he is claiming in the statement that Samsung only made $5 profit on every phone in total. They can not say that software and design elements of their phone which the patents infringed only represented $5 of the total profits. I would like to see the calculation on that one especially when you are talking about rounded corners.
IF you sell something and make lots of profits on what you sell and you infringe on someone IP they can claim damages against the total profits of what you sold not just the feature unless you can show that feature is separately priced and sold, even then if that feature enables the total sales they they are all inconsideration.
Apple failed to prove it to a court despite all the discussions Apple and Samsung had well before it was decided a lawsuit was the only way to settle it. Yet you think it's a even or better chance that Rockstar, who's asserting IP that Samsung was highly unlikely to have been aware of before they may have used it in a product, will be more successful at proving willfulness? That's how I can say I believe a particular outcome is more likely than not.
Litigants attempt to claim willfullness in nearly every patent infringement case I've read. Perhaps every one of them I've seen, dunno for certain as I didn't pay that close attention. Proving it sure doesn't happen often and it's recently become harder than ever.
That's because the rules have changed First there has to be convincing proof that the infringer was using the claimed IP despite “an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” That's a simple question of fact and can be decided by a jury.
Then assuming that bridge gets crossed here's the part that changed and is no longer in a jury's hands. The owner of the patent has to show that subjectively the infringer was well aware of a high risk to using that IP (that it was “either known or so obvious that it should have been known”) and their defense for using it is unreasonable. For that a judge has to determine the defendants rationale at the time of infringement, how they arrived at their choice and what went into the decision.
So my opinion is willful infringement ain't gonna happen with any of these current Rockstar defendants. The odds are on my side that I'm right.
Hey wait a minute what about google they should get poked as a partner in crime
Rest assured, they will see the inside of a courtroom during the Rockstar Consortium infringement trial.