|Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 11:48 PM EST|
|Oh I agree Apple is misrepresenting their situation here at best, but I'm still|
not sure that said agreement is relevant. It depends on *exactly* what Apple
offered in the $30/device proposal.
It's not so much the monetary value as defence against an injunction. You're
only meant to be able to get an injunction if you can prove other forms of
damages aren't enough.
For some ridiculous reason this usually gets turned around and it's on the
defendant to prove the plaintiff *won't* suffer irreparable harm. That's what
Samsung is aiming for here - if you're willing to license a patent for $$ then
aren't you admitting that money is enough to compensate you for infringement?
And then an injunction shouldn't be issued.
Apple of course want an injunction, so they'll argue against that. But hasn't
their $30 offer already suggested that money is enough? If something wasn't in
that offer then yeah the Apple-HTC deal is potentially relevant. if not, it's
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]