|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
How about Samsung recouping the costs of developing a workaround to the patent?
What about the damage to Samsung's brand given how huge the news of Apple's win
was?
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
| n/t (Christenson) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
The worst penalty Apple could suffer would be if people would stop
characterizing Apple as the Wizard of Oz company. Jobs was a PT Barnum, the
Thomas Edison of Apple, taking credit others' work. It's what irks me, the
unsung grunts who toil under the corporate tarp so a celebrity can get the
credit. The fact that Apple uses mob style intimidation and extortion tactics
only makes it worse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
Pretty much nil, as I understand it.
Apple had a valid patent granted by the USPTO. They brought
suit related to what they could reasonably claim is a good
faith belief that Samsung violated that patent (heck,
Samsung pretty much admitted it infringed the patent as
issued).
The fact that they SHOULDN'T have had a valid patent,
because the USPTO should never have issued it at all, isn't
Apple's fault.
They're acting like jerks, but jerks with patents are LEGAL
jerks.
In theory, you could argue Apple's actions were taking
knowingly in bad faith because they deliberately concealed
prior art from the USPTO. That's a tall hill to climb.
You'd probably need some willful deception and knowing
abuse. You'd have to argue that Apple was well aware of the
prior art, that they knew that the prior art was highly
relevant, that they deliberately did not disclose to the
USPTO specifically because they knew it would invalidate
their patent application (and not, say, because they made a
good faith determination it wasn't relevant), and therefore
knew their patent was invalid when they brought suit based
on it. And even then, the fact that the USPTO (which is
AFAIK required to independently research prior art, not just
take the inventor's word for it) signed off, which arguably
validates Apple's hypotehtical determination that the prior
art (even if they knew about it) wasn't relevant. If the
USPTO didn't find the prior art in its search of the public
data, it's hard to argue Apple is willfully deceptive in
(theoretically) knowing about it and "concealing" it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
