|
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
I think that she should set aside the entire verdict until all
certainty over whether the patents are valid are settled. She
can then start a new trial in (say) 2018. By that time, she'll
probably feel that with a little luck she will have passed the
case on to some other poor sucker.... :-)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: squib on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
I'm not disagreeing with you OmniGeek. However, the judge might still find
herself between a rock and a hard place. At the start of this litigation, I
think she felt a duty (justly some might say) to be economic with the courts
time (tax payers pay a lot into the judicial system) but found herself in a
situation of having one party with a very, very formidable and aggressive stance
(which she had not been trained to cope with) and the other party equally
ability to stand up and defend its rights in law (which she had not been
trained to cope with). As she has adopted America as her home, she must feel
the need to justify her conviction to show that the US court system is superior
to that of her forebears by defending the the American Credo.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
As I posted above. Parallel
Exclusion by C. Scott Hemphill of Columbia University - Law School
&
Tim Wu also of Columbia University - Law School March 19, 2013
That paper show that it is no longer necessary to compete on the basis of a
better product but only on the advantage of ones economic might.
She
evidently did not walk into this with an understanding of industrial warfare, so
I doubt if she can stop further escalations. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|