Apple faces $600m damages claim
bbc.co.uk
Apple faces $600m damages claim
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#2I'll never understand how these damages are calculated. Does anyone actually believe that the patent owners would have made > $600m had Apple never written the supposedly infringing software?
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#3It's unbelievable that a company that doesn't even have a website can win a suit like this.
For Apple to have caused "Mirror Worlds" any harm, they would have to be competing with each other. For Mirror Worlds to compete with ANYBODY, a good start would be appearing to be a real business in any way shape or form.
Maybe I don't really understand patent law, but David Gelernter just sounds like a total scumbag here. I've read some of his stuff before, and he seems like a smart guy. What gives?
Edit: apparently this is Mirror Worlds' product website: http://www.scopeware.com/
Nothing. Vaporware.
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#4I'll never understand how these damages are calculated. Does anyone actually believe that the patent owners would have made > $600m had Apple never written the supposedly infringing software?
IANAL, but there is a distinction between compensatory damages (which is what you are talking about) and punitive damages. I don't think the article mentions which, or what combination, of these is being awarded here.
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#5It's unbelievable that a company that doesn't even have a website can win a suit like this. For Apple to have caused "Mirror Worlds" any harm, they would have to be competing with each other. For Mirror Worlds to compete with ANYBODY , a good start would be appearing to be a real business in any way shape or form. Maybe I don't really understand patent law, but David Gelernter just sounds like a total scumbag here. I…
Patent law is to protect the inventor, not necessarily a manufacturer. In this case the jury has decided that Mr. Gelernter invented something, properly acquired a patent (thus documenting his invention's workings for the whole world to read), and that Apple used his invention without compensating him.
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#6It added that the patents had been sold and any damages awarded should reflect that market value. The patent package is believed to have been sold for $5m.
If the patent package was recently sold, doesn't that do a pretty good job of establishing the value of the patents, and thus, the appropriate judgment against Apple?
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#7It's unbelievable that a company that doesn't even have a website can win a suit like this. For Apple to have caused "Mirror Worlds" any harm, they would have to be competing with each other. For Mirror Worlds to compete with ANYBODY , a good start would be appearing to be a real business in any way shape or form. Maybe I don't really understand patent law, but David Gelernter just sounds like a total scumbag here. I…
I don't think you understand the difference between a patent troll and an IP company.
The company I work for designs antennae for cell phones, wifi, GPS receivers etc. We barely have a website, just a couple of PhDs and a lawyer. We rely on licencing our designs and file a lot of patents. It's judgements like this that stop cell phone makers deciding that it's cheaper to just copy our inventions than pay us a licence fee.
The fine is supposed to be a dtterent - to say that it should be limited to what the company was bought for is like saying the fine for murdering a child should be limited to the hospital maternity bill.
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#8I'll never understand how these damages are calculated. Does anyone actually believe that the patent owners would have made > $600m had Apple never written the supposedly infringing software?
To add to the other commenter's reply. These damages have little to do with compensating the damaged party and far more to do with punishing the infringer as a way to provide a dis-incentive for them to do something similar in the future.
An example is in some average lawsuit where someone is hurt by something and unable to work.. let's say they can never work again... Now if we assume the company, or person, responsible would only have to pay for their hospital bills (200k maybe?) and their lifetime salary (50 years of working at the US avg of 50k a year) we only get to about 2.7 mil... In these cases the courts generally find that the compensatory damages aren't large enough to provide the dis-incentive necessary... Or so I understand it.
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#9I'll never understand how these damages are calculated. Does anyone actually believe that the patent owners would have made > $600m had Apple never written the supposedly infringing software?
What about the more interesting case - what if apple had made the software, licensed the patent, and paid them a royalty for every copy of itunes downloaded, every copy of time machine shipped, and so on?
You know, the way patents are usually handled.
Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim
#10It's unbelievable that a company that doesn't even have a website can win a suit like this. For Apple to have caused "Mirror Worlds" any harm, they would have to be competing with each other. For Mirror Worlds to compete with ANYBODY , a good start would be appearing to be a real business in any way shape or form. Maybe I don't really understand patent law, but David Gelernter just sounds like a total scumbag here. I…
For Apple to have caused "Mirror Worlds" any harm, they would have to be competing with each other.
Not so. The harm done is in one's granted patent monopoly being infringed upon. In principle this is patents protecting the little guy's invention from being exploited by the big guy without compensation. There is of course a fine line between that and patent trolling.
What gives?
Probably one or both parties declined to enter a licensing agreement.
Nothing. Vaporware.
Scopeware was around in the early 2000s. If I remember correctly it had some traction in the legal profession, but fell very short of the vision described in Gelernter's books. That's why you've never heard of it.