|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Well, not that I'm ever for patent aggression,
but lawyers are supposed to take advantage of
opportunities. It's the tone that I think makes
it offensive and the overstating. I mean, they
have to know the jury can't possibly be Quinn's
hoped-for audience. They are lawyers. They know,
and so when they try to accuse based on what
I think they have to know makes no sense in real
life, it gives it a kind of phony quality.
Here's the thing that has changed. The public didn't
pay any attention to tech trials once upon a time.
You didn't have long lines waiting to attend them.
So lawyers honed their skills in an atmosphere that
is very different from now. I mean, they only had
to worry about the judge, the jury and the appellate
review.
Now, the public is there too, and it's a new factor.
Apple may even win, although after reading what the judge
and even the Fed. Cir. wrote about Apple's patents, I
don't see how they can win on that, but maybe they
can win on the design patent. But if they do, they
will be despised on a level we haven't seen since
Microsoft, and that's what kills companies in the
end. It may be slow, as we are watching with Microsoft,
but it's inevitable, because human beings have a
built-in love of fairness, and they want to buy Apple
products now because they like the brand and trust
the company. Once you lose that, you don't get it
back.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
