I think it is going to be around 1.6 billion. Then probably two rounds of appeals before Samesung decides "it will just be easier, more cost effective, and less distracting to just pay the amount owed. We will do this for our customers." (you know, that kind of rhetoric.)
I think it is going to be around 1.6 billion. Then probably two rounds of appeals before Samesung decides "it will just be easier, more cost effective, and less distracting to just pay the amount owed. We will do this for our customers." (you know, that kind of rhetoric.)
I suppose that would be a reasonable amount to expect (given the late ruling that threw a monkey wrench in this case), however so far I'm not sure what is going through the minds of these jurors. They seem to be lacking a real understanding of what patents represent.
I suppose that would be a reasonable amount to expect (given the late ruling that threw a monkey wrench in this case), however so far I'm not sure what is going through the minds of these jurors. They seem to be lacking a real understanding of what patents represent.
"They seem to be lacking real understanding of what patents represent".
Since the jurors can't communicate with the outside world, and you aren't, I assume a mind reader, then what is the point of the statement?
The jury is a collection of a cross section of our society. I don't expect them to be experts on patent law, nor to even have a real understanding. But I do expect them to sift through the testimony and evidence that was provided in the trial to come to a decision about whether Samsung was guilty of infringement, was willful in infringement, and what the financial mitigation for that infringement would be.
"They seem to be lacking real understanding of what patents represent".
Since the jurors can't communicate with the outside world, and you aren't, I assume a mind reader, then what is the point of the statement?
The jury is a collection of a cross section of our society. I don't expect them to be experts on patent law, nor to even have a real understanding. But I do expect them to sift through the testimony and evidence that was provided in the trial to come to a decision about whether Samsung was guilty of infringement, was willful in infringement, and what the financial mitigation for that infringement would be.
That's precisely the problem. An uneducated public is a poor jury.
That's precisely the problem. An uneducated public is a poor jury.
What would you change? Would you have a test of potential jurists? Would you only select from a pool of patent experts?
That alternative to the jury is to have the Court provide opinion and relief, but if I'm not mistaken, that was not Apple's choice.
It would seem that the previous jury came to the (obvious in my opinion) conclusion that Samsung infringed, and they also came to a conclusion about the financial mitigation. So you expect more than that?
They could have handled it through arbitration instead. Otherwise how would you select an educated jury?
I recall that the court required Apple and Samsung representatives to meet and attempt to negotiate a settlement prior to trial. That wasn't successful.
I recall that the court required Apple and Samsung representatives to meet and attempt to negotiate a settlement prior to trial. That wasn't successful.
I believe Apple chose a jury trial.
I didn't say anything about meeting to negotiate. You may have misinterpreted what I meant by arbitration. I could have stated binding arbitration to make the point clearer. If either side has a problem with uneducated juries, their option is to have the matter decided by arbiters with some amount of real background in both patent law and technology.
I didn't say anything about meeting to negotiate. You may have misinterpreted what I meant by arbitration. I could have stated binding arbitration to make the point clearer. If either side has a problem with uneducated juries, their option is to have the matter decided by arbiters with some amount of real background in both patent law and technology.
My apologies. I didn't read closely enough.
Arbitration would have been a course of action prior to a court trial, though in this case, Apple desired a trial.
Arbitration would have been a course of action prior to a court trial, though in this case, Apple desired a trial.
No problem. I don't know of any other options. Either they use a jury of laymen or they arbitration where the individuals have some background in the area of contention.
Comments
I think it is going to be around 1.6 billion. Then probably two rounds of appeals before Samesung decides "it will just be easier, more cost effective, and less distracting to just pay the amount owed. We will do this for our customers." (you know, that kind of rhetoric.)
I assume Apple keeps their lawyers on retainer so Apple may have already been paying them out regardless of a win or loss, lawsuit or no lawsuit.
Are they allowed to award treble damages for willful infringement? Or am I thinking of something else?
Are they allowed to award treble damages for willful infringement? Or am I thinking of something else?
Does the jury treble damages, or does the judge?
I think it is going to be around 1.6 billion. Then probably two rounds of appeals before Samesung decides "it will just be easier, more cost effective, and less distracting to just pay the amount owed. We will do this for our customers." (you know, that kind of rhetoric.)
I suppose that would be a reasonable amount to expect (given the late ruling that threw a monkey wrench in this case), however so far I'm not sure what is going through the minds of these jurors. They seem to be lacking a real understanding of what patents represent.
I suppose that would be a reasonable amount to expect (given the late ruling that threw a monkey wrench in this case), however so far I'm not sure what is going through the minds of these jurors. They seem to be lacking a real understanding of what patents represent.
"They seem to be lacking real understanding of what patents represent".
Since the jurors can't communicate with the outside world, and you aren't, I assume a mind reader, then what is the point of the statement?
The jury is a collection of a cross section of our society. I don't expect them to be experts on patent law, nor to even have a real understanding. But I do expect them to sift through the testimony and evidence that was provided in the trial to come to a decision about whether Samsung was guilty of infringement, was willful in infringement, and what the financial mitigation for that infringement would be.
"They seem to be lacking real understanding of what patents represent".
Since the jurors can't communicate with the outside world, and you aren't, I assume a mind reader, then what is the point of the statement?
The jury is a collection of a cross section of our society. I don't expect them to be experts on patent law, nor to even have a real understanding. But I do expect them to sift through the testimony and evidence that was provided in the trial to come to a decision about whether Samsung was guilty of infringement, was willful in infringement, and what the financial mitigation for that infringement would be.
That's precisely the problem. An uneducated public is a poor jury.
That's precisely the problem. An uneducated public is a poor jury.
What would you change? Would you have a test of potential jurists? Would you only select from a pool of patent experts?
That alternative to the jury is to have the Court provide opinion and relief, but if I'm not mistaken, that was not Apple's choice.
It would seem that the previous jury came to the (obvious in my opinion) conclusion that Samsung infringed, and they also came to a conclusion about the financial mitigation. So you expect more than that?
http://www.ballardspahr.com/alertspublications/legalalerts/2012-06-18-fed-cir-says-trial-judge-decides-threshold-issue-of-willful-infringement.aspx
That's precisely the problem. An uneducated public is a poor jury.
They could have handled it through arbitration instead. Otherwise how would you select an educated jury?
They could have handled it through arbitration instead. Otherwise how would you select an educated jury?
I recall that the court required Apple and Samsung representatives to meet and attempt to negotiate a settlement prior to trial. That wasn't successful.
I believe Apple chose a jury trial.
I recall that the court required Apple and Samsung representatives to meet and attempt to negotiate a settlement prior to trial. That wasn't successful.
I believe Apple chose a jury trial.
I didn't say anything about meeting to negotiate. You may have misinterpreted what I meant by arbitration. I could have stated binding arbitration to make the point clearer. If either side has a problem with uneducated juries, their option is to have the matter decided by arbiters with some amount of real background in both patent law and technology.
I disagree. They have no preconceived notions, nor are biased. The Apple lawyers chose these people for a reason.
I didn't say anything about meeting to negotiate. You may have misinterpreted what I meant by arbitration. I could have stated binding arbitration to make the point clearer. If either side has a problem with uneducated juries, their option is to have the matter decided by arbiters with some amount of real background in both patent law and technology.
My apologies. I didn't read closely enough.
Arbitration would have been a course of action prior to a court trial, though in this case, Apple desired a trial.
I disagree. They have no preconceived notions, nor are biased. The Apple lawyers chose these people for a reason.
Make no mistake, everyone has a bias (also known as a point of view or opinion).
My apologies. I didn't read closely enough.
Arbitration would have been a course of action prior to a court trial, though in this case, Apple desired a trial.
No problem. I don't know of any other options. Either they use a jury of laymen or they arbitration where the individuals have some background in the area of contention.
Not on what the trial is about.