|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:23 PM EDT |
Right in the court proceedings it shows Samsung showed prior art for all that
stuff, and evidence Apple knew about that prior art.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
1) It will be interesting to see what the Judge does with the willfulness aspect
of
the case. She can triple the damages based on factors such as (1) whether the
infringement was willful or deliberate; (2) whether the infringer had a good
faith
belief that the patent was invalid; and (3) the party's conduct during the
litigation. Samsung is already in trouble with (1) and (3).
2) By "trade dress patents" do you mean design patents? It will be
hard for
Samsung to do this as they cannot introduce any new evidence on appeal. Best
they can hope for is a new trial based on the exclusion of the F700. However,
that will be tricky as Samsung clearly had every opportunity to include the
phone in the trial during the appropriate discovery window. I am really curious
on who dropped the ball on that one. However, it is not even clear to me that
the F700 would make a difference.
3) I don't agree, but I guess that is allowed. It is easy to claim things are
invalid
with general statements, but when you get down to finding each and every
element of the patent CLAIM in the prior art, it can be tough.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
They showed video of a real product with all of these - the devices that were
shown to Apple Engineers..
That was proven, but ignored.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
"if anything Apple was the first company that built something that
implemented these ideas, but in movies like 2001, Alien, and the Matrix (3rd
one), these ideas were simulated."
So, your considered legal theory is that if I were to invite a teleportation
machine, I wouldn't be able to patent it because the teleporter in Star Trek
represented "prior art".
That's a pretty interesting view. Crazy, but interesting.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
