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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I have immediately checked Marvel stock when I last saw the news, there was no reaction in the stock market! I think common investors may not even knew about this case or don't care about it.
I think the only law suits people care about is from Apple :)
Selinz, wilful infringement means learning a competitors invention and deliberatly copying it, other than plain infringement, which means coming up with a similar idea independently later in the day. Both cases are infringement, of course, but for wilful infringement you can claim triple damages.
Lots of knee jerk speeches without much substance here. Has anyone even looked at the patent involved? This isn't some overly broad patent but a very specific patent with detailed mathematical algorithms.
Having known someone who claimed that a certain company starting with M partnered with his company then stole all the IP and built it themselves, resulting in many lawsuits he went broke trying to right the wrongs, I wouldn't be so quick to fly off at the handle and make gross generalizations about patents in this case.
"I suspect the Jury might consist of total idiots". The juries are required to be idiot. They have to be regular people without tech knowledge to cause biases. That is the requirement of the US law system. We can imagine the juries for such patent cases are mostly local old ladies and soccer moms. The keywords are "They should not have any STEM background."
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.