There is a reason that lawyers "practice" law rather than help uphold it. With all due respect, there is nothing in the legal system that is finite or right at any level up to and including the Supreme Court. The process is to first identify which party is the "bad guy", then go find something to use to hang him. With nearly 250 years of case law and millions of patents, there is always something in the records to argue a case one way or the other. If you don't believe this, ask your attorney why you need to wear a nice coat and tie to court.
Now that the US Government has protected big industry from the little patent trolls starting on Saturday, how about focusing on protecting the rest of America from the big patent trolls. This is all so ridiculous.
To prove wilful infrigement, you have to prove that the guilty party actually understood the patent they are infringing. The way some attorneys write patent claims, that can be damn near impossible. I speak from experience. I could also provide examples.
Remember folks in the Apple lawsuit with Samsung, Apple was awarded damages because of their design patents: A rectangle with rounded corners, a black box, and a Green phone icon. If the jury cannot see prior art in these fundamental areas, then there is no hope for real justice in America with patents.
"If more people paid attention to how the legal system works in America"
Well I pay attention so I know that our system of juris prudence has a Federal Circuit Court ("Court of Appeals") precisely to review judgments such as this one. "Mass anarchy" might have to wait until the entire legal process has been given the opportunity to work....
1.2B for 2 patents is madness. I suspect the Jury might consist of total idiots who have no background in tech. The starting point in such calculations should be the incremental profits that Marvel, made using this particular algo vs a previously used algo. Which by all chances will be less than a few millions. Oh wait.. its not abt damages here. Its abt pittsburg jury supporting local university and education.
In an era in which the headline making patent cases involve subtle distinctions between products, it is interesting to see a pure technology case. This may result in Carnegie Mellon funds to further improve their well regarded computer science capabilities.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.