Apple Demands Another $707 Million in Damages From Samsung > Hope a New Trial is Granted

reply to pnh102

Re: Hope a New Trial is Granted

It boils down to a jury of peers, which of course unless these people have actually worked w/ IP and understand how the system is not logical, then they have no way of deciding adequately. It's not their fault, we have moved to "soft" patents which is I came up with an idea, let's patent instead of demonstrating a prototype and limiting it's "prior" art to that application. That is why any soft patent seems ridiculous, because it is. You can apply them to a swath of products now and in the future.

Wait until we get into the network DVR wars. That's next.

We are getting to the point where technology is outpacing 95% or human understanding, so filling the jury with the 95% ers is going to get you some really uninformed decisions.

Also damages here are no treble so even if they awarded it should be for actual damages, not theoretical ones. That would require someone to know exactly the economic loss, and that is not easy--certainly not in a few days.

Just listening to this guy makes my head spin.

In any case I read the patents, and I can't believe they were even issued, so even if they were you can still call them stupid, and invalidate them.

Before I went into tech I was seriously considering to become an IP lawyer. Man did I mess up

I think to claim harm a company should have to bring attention to the harm with in one year of the product existing. After that one year the complaints are automatically voided and the product considered protected by prior art.

My reasoning for this? it would help prevent the issue where something exists for a long time and then someone files a patent lawsuit when the product starts making train loads of money. Because to me when someone holds off that long it reflects more of their awaiting to sue so they can score a big payday.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

reply to HogansZeroes
Wow, Vel Hogan is a moron.
He talks about the 460 patent and then says it is valid because apples software would not run on the same processors as the prior art.
This is the 460 patent "A method of operating a portable composite communication terminal the functions as both a portable phone and a camera."
My nokia did this back in 2002 and I would imagine phones before then even did that.
So basically he says samsung violated the patent because samsung's software is compiled to work on the same 3rd party processor.

That is the juror for hell. He had his "ah, ha" moment, lol. What a tool. I would have hated to have to deal with that moron.
Those type of people who think they know about technology, but they actually know nothing are dangerous.