Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Chris in Utah (profile), Apr 6th, 2011 @ 6:42am

   
   

   WTF?!?

   Seriously Texans get your crap in order. Anybody smell test that jury?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Malodorous Intent (profile), Apr 6th, 2011 @ 6:49am

   
   

   A missed opportunity

   From the Apple Insider post on the story, Gelernter says the following:
   
   

   "That makes me angry personally, not because of the money, but because of the deliberate failure to acknowledge work that we would have made freely available as academics and that companies will not acknowledge because there is so much money involved," he said.

   
   "Would have made freely available" but didn't.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   The Devil's Coachman (profile), Apr 6th, 2011 @ 7:16am

   
   

   Re: A missed opportunity

   And Gelertner is completely full of shite! Anyone who takes that malarkey seriously should be institutionalized. The jury that awarded the ludicrous sum of money should be shot dead.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 7:31am

   
   

   Re: Re: A missed opportunity

   There are not enough bullets in the world to shoot everybody that deserves it.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Pixelation, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 7:34am

   
   

   I can see the headline now, "Judge forced to resign". Those poor Texas courts are going to lose their reputation.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 9:14am

   
   

   At least the lawyers still get paid.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   The eejit (profile), Apr 6th, 2011 @ 9:52am

   
   

   Re: Re: Re: A missed opportunity

   Oh, there are. Just a shame most of those guns are in the hands of 'Terrorists'!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Dan (profile), Apr 6th, 2011 @ 10:35am

   
   

   This werdict perpetuates a bad system

   If you look at this from the other direction, scaling back this verdict is incentive to not fix what's broken. Consider this:
   
   If the verdict and the amount were allowed to stand, companies would eventually get the clue that patient laws that allow such big awards, are as much of a liability as an asset.
   
   As soon as the percentage of payouts vs. total revenue gets large enough for large companies, they will lobby for lower awards which in turn will make filing the lawsuits less lucrative in the first place, turning the focus to innovation.
   
   If you truly wish reform of a broken system, the best thing to do is to allow it to perform broken. The influential players will eventually get fed up and reform it.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   trilobug, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 10:36am

   
   

   Don't mess with me...

   Oh yes there are, You'd be surprised how many are made just in case - and that's just Texas.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 11:58am

    
    

    It's an amusing day when Apple has better patent defense attorneys than Microsoft (re: i4i)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    staff, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 12:19pm

    
    

    stop the shilling

    "the damages awards were ridiculous"
    
    The only sensible way to determine damages is to let the market set them. Restore injunctions for all patentees large and small, then we will truly know what an invention is worth. Anything short of an injunction once infringement is found is theft by government on top of theft by the infringer and a denial of a Constitutionally mandated right.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    staff, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    
    

    Re: stop the shilling

    make that Constitutionally 'recognized'

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Herb Cohen, Apr 6th, 2011 @ 1:06pm

    
    

    Re: stop the shilling

    " Anything short of an injunction once infringement is found is theft by government on top of theft by the infringer and a denial of a Constitutionally mandated right."
    
    Wait you're suggesting that Patents are Constitutional right? Are you high? The only reference to IP in the constitution is clearly there to mitigate it's impact and limit the availability of such monopolies. Remember at that time, and in fact up until 1831 (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1) the government didn't assume the power over states to enforce commerce. The clause you're referring to has been creatively re-interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it's intent was to prevent: dubious monopolies that overshadow governmental powers.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    patent litigation, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 3:11pm

    
    

    court or market?

    Even so, the outcome of the patent litigation between Apple and Nokia is far from certain. As noted by Alexander Poltorak at GPC: "One cannot help wondering if the latest round [of suits between Apple and Nokia] is not a proxy for a fight between Microsoft and Apple, which are rivals as well." It's questionable whether these mobile wars should take place in the courts, in the form of patent litigation, or should be properly restricted to the marketplace, where they rightfully belong. Whatever one's position on the issue, however, it's true that as long as IP rights exist, then patentees have every legal right to enforce them.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment