millions, billions, ....
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Richard Aug 25, 2012 10:29 AM EDT |
The verdict is for $1.049 billion.
You stated $1,051,855 which is 1 million 51 thousand 855? 0....., 10.....tens, 100.....hundreds, 1000.....thousands, 1000000.....millions, *1000000000.....billions,* 1000000000000.....trillions, etcetera. |
| caitlyn Aug 25, 2012 12:44 PM EDT |
As PJ points out, this will be appealed. This is definitely not over yet. |
| JaseP Aug 25, 2012 1:06 PM EDT |
I hope this case gets to be the one that causes SCOTUS to invalidate software patents... This is just sickening. Koh is a horrible (and biased) judge,... Why can't we have another Posner?! |
| dinotrac Aug 25, 2012 1:49 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- this could be the one. You're right -- it is a sickening verdict, and, perhaps, the perfect fact scenario to let the Justices continue down the road they've already been walking. Can't happen soon enough for me. |
| helios Aug 25, 2012 3:16 PM EDT |
Chances are, I may be totally wrong on this but I believe the Google-Motorola/Apple donnybrook will eclipse Apple/Samsung, if only for the fact that Google has a global mind share whereas Samsung is known for a decent monitor and occasional TV....and I hear they might make a pretty good smart phone. Samsung just doesn't have the hearts and minds that Google has. I'm willing to bet this is going to be the "next big deal". |
| tuxchick Aug 25, 2012 3:38 PM EDT |
So the moral is, encourage your kids to become lawyers because they will never lack for work. |
| BernardSwiss Aug 25, 2012 5:10 PM EDT |
It doesn't look like this jury was terribly impartial, or even thought very hard about the matters at hand -- among other things, they awarded Apple over $200 million for a particular "infringement" claim for which they had already (themselves) determined Samsung hadn't actually infringed. And there was a clear double standard applied to weighing the "infringements" claimed by both sides. I would argue that this goes well beyond the typical technological cluelessness of juries in general, and actually shows a distinct bias for "the home team". If the jurors simply didn't understand the issues around these largely trivial and meritless patents, there would have been a somewhat (or at least much more) equal distribution of findings of infringement between the opposing partied. An even more farcical show than was anticipated. |
| nmset Aug 26, 2012 12:34 PM EDT |
Why should the USA kill the golden egg hen ? I can't understand comments towards a reform of the US silly patent system on software ! |
| JaseP Aug 27, 2012 10:14 AM EDT |
Golden Egg Hen (a/k/a Goose)?!?! The broken US Patent systemis hardly a golden egg laying foul for the US. It may protect MS and Apple a little bit, but those are 2 companies among 1,000s... and many of those 1,000s are small, 2-50 person shops. What it does is raise the barrier for entry into the software/hardware product to a level where small start-ups cannot compete... period. It also forces development overseas to countries where they (with good sense) have refused to extend patent protection to software. Patent protection of software comes from a set of horrible mis-interperetations of the SCOTUS decision in Diamond v. Diehl, a case involving a patent on a computer operated rubber curimg system. Lower courtshave mis-applied the reasoning in the case as an invitation to allow patents on software on general use computers. Recent decisions hint at SCOTUS pulling back the application of reasoning toward a more conservative reading of the Diamond v. Diehl case. What is needed is a good test case that will not totally eviscerate software patents, as they apply to otherwise patentable processes, but more narrowly apply them so that the Court does not suddenly make moot the prevailing business practices of the last 10 years, of buying up old OOB companies for their IP (worth countless billions of dollars). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!