|
|
|
| Authored by: stegu on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 07:05 PM EST |
As PJ pointed out, this does seem incorrect.
> The jury, of course, granted damages for both
> patents, since they were in a generous and hasty
> mood and apparently didn't notice the similarities.
I suspect they didn't even look. Consider the speed
at which they arrived at a final verdict with detailed
amounts for damages, and consider the reports that they
were undecided on the first day of deliberations and
therefore couldn't really have discussed detailed
infringement and damages sooner than on the second day.
Is it humanly possible in that short time span to do
anything more than a simple vote for each patent
and each device, deciding whether this or that device
infringes based on a predominantly subjective opinion
of the majority of the jurors?
The decision falls apart under scrutiny in the
aftermath. I think that is a strong indication
that it was reached on very loose grounds.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Homen on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 07:43 PM EST |
First, IANAL. Second as far as I am aware, the concept of
double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases, not civil
cases, like this one.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
