Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"If Apple won their current market position through innovation, and Samsung is eroding it by taking advantage of that innovation counter to patent law, there's no reasonable amount Samsung could pay to set things to right."

Let us say that first "If" is held by the judge as a given and that allows for him to deny the same rights to the other party. How does that work at all ?

When one of these gets overturned "there's no reasonable amount" Apple "could pay to set things"..."right.". How is that loss calculated ? Is it calculated at all ?

This automatic assumption after the cry wolf turns to nothing in the end and the plaintiff abused the law and the courts to retain commercial position while trying to cement its stand through jurisprudence.

This is a sad state of things and points to a needed overhaul, if not, it will just go on and on until it breaks in the end. Billions of dollars later, the "leaders" will have chocked everyone else not because of innovation but because of bad legislation that assumes too much at the preliminary stages based on incompetent assertions that cannot be equated like other parts of the law. Yet, here we are.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: