As an engineer and a patent holder, I feel a huge black mark has come down on engineering because of this foreman's decision to "steer" the rest of the jury, basically making the jury decision a decision of 1 and not a decision of 9.
It is incredulous to believe that all prior art presented was ignored in the decision of this single engineer. Apple copied the ideas of many before it, and as such it should not own the rights to the work of those others.
Frank, I agree that INTENT does matter! I do not have firsthand knowledge of any company that discourages engineers from doing patent searches but that might make sense. I would be more inclined to do the search to make sure that I am not getting into hot water prior to spending company time/money on a patent. Maybe I am the only one who thinks this way, but it makes sense to not "re-invent the wheel" as it can only lead to trouble (especially if the product it is used for goes into production and is a major success).
It is shame! As of today technologies moving up, most of the works yesterday were become industry standards. I owned more than 30 patents and have reviewed hundreds of patents, I found that most of the patents' ideas are similar for the non expert people. It is shame again for us!
I agree with you. It is shame! As of today technologies moving up, most of the works yesterday were become industry standards. I owned more than 30 patents and have reviewed hundreds of patents, I found that most of the patents' ideas are similar for the non expert people. It is shame again for us!
Actually intent DOES count in terms of whether the damages are tripled or not.
There are probably companies that discourage their engineers from doing patent searches or studying patents for this very reason.
If an engineer designs something not knowing that someone else has patents on one or more aspects of that design, then by virtue of ignorance-is-bliss, it wasn't willful infringement.
If on the other hand he or she is aware of the prior art, then it might be decided that the prior art was intentionally and willfully used without license and the damages could be tripled.
The rationale for this is of course to discourage infringement. If the damages were limited to 1x the royalty that should've been paid, there is little disincentive against infringing. If you get away with it, you pay nothing. If you get caught, you end up paying what you would've had to pay anyway.
But if you have to pay 3x what you would otherwise have had to pay, you might think twice before intentionally infringing on someone else's patent.
Tough questions there Merritt..not, pro apple stance again eh buddy, could u at least stop showing the Samsung phone with the app drawer open AND scaled in the photo so it looks the same. No mention of the prior art that was disallowed and the jury not following instructions etc. Or that it looks like American Protectionism... Sue instead of compete..etc. etc.. I guess there's a reason tech comes to the states dead last..
It's not like his judgement decided the fate of a persons life, once it is determined the patent was valid however silly it could have been, they had to simply decide if Samsung designs had those or not. Intent does not count here.
This guy gave a verdict on the patent system, because he won two. And influenced the rest of the jury. Not on Apple or Samsung innovations. Being an engineer myself, I woudnt call any jury duty the highlight of my career. What a shame....
Blog Doing Math in FPGAs Tom Burke 16 comments For a recent project, I explored doing "real" (that is, non-integer) math on a Spartan 3 FPGA. FPGAs, by their nature, do integer math. That is, there's no floating-point ...