|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
To keep the lawyers in a good feeding status.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
You have to read between the lines of this part of the
opinion:According to Samsung, because the asserted patents at issue
here were not at issue in the District Court case, the jury necessarily could
not have concluded that products embodying these patents were sold in the U.S.
or even covered by the Samsung/Intel license.
The licence would
have been to the USPTO patent. I would guess that the Intel chips are
manufactured in Asia and do not have to have a US licence unless Intel import
them into the US.
I think that Apple had complete control and direction
of the iPhone design and directed the use of the chip in the manufacture in
China. They imported the phones with the chip. Any purchase of the chips would
be under their direction and responsibility even if the purchasing agent for
Apple was not an Apple subsidiary.
The bottom line is that the US
patent infringing phones were built for Apple under contract and imported by
Apple from China. No US patent licence was required for the manufacture of the
Intel chips in Asia. The Intel chip is, anyway, an especially manufactured
component and it is the whole phone that directly infringes once imported into
the US.--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|