Marvell claimed that they were using some other "invention".
Marvell claimed that Seagate's patent was prior art that invalidated the CMU patent. The correct course of action is not "Welp, we're good." It's to use that to try to have the CMU patent invalidated. They didn't do that until they got sued.
My understanding from reading other articles is that they did actually try to pursue a license for Marvell for several years before filing suit. And this damage total is for ten years of willful infringement. I have trouble calling it patent trolling in that light.
Of course, I think the patent is ridiculously broad and should be invalidated, but it hasn't been yet.
Wow. Way to read *way* more into it than what I said.
I said I thought what they were charging him with was wrong.
I stated what crimes seemed more accurate based on the description of events in the article. Trespass, for breaking into the private property advert boxes, and Vandalism, for replacing their posters with his own.
Who's saying he should be punished whether he's guilty or not? It certainly wasn't me. I can think his actions were wrong while simultaneously thinking the treatement he's getting from the authority is way off base. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
If I ran a storefront, and somebody broke in to plaster my windows with their posters, I wouldn't classify that as protected under Free Speech. They have a right to put out whatever message they want. They do *not* have a right to do it with my property.
I know I'll probably catch flack for this, but I really disagree with what he did.
He broke into the Van Wagner advert boxes and replaced the contents. It's not like he stapled them to telephone poles, or somewhere else public notices are commonly posted.
Do I think the charges are overblown? Yes. I'd equate it more with trespass and vandalism, but I still don't think this is the Free Speech issue it would be if he'd posted them somewhere more socially acceptable.