>Why not make decisions for a few percent of companies turnover?
The problem is that this case wasn't really about Samsung, and it wasn't really about a few companies, or the fine. This was a high profile case about a broken IP system, a rogue gorilla and an outcome that stifles innovation in the technical arena (not just smartphones). You don't think someone will think twice before even going near Apple again, regardless of the validity (or prior art) of the patent? I am incredulous that anyone could have come to the conclusion of this juror, particularly someone with a tech background.
Hopefully, this won't be the last battle that could turn this madness around.
The IP system is pretty broken in a number of ways but this case is not the example to pick. Samsung clearly copied to a certain extent even if the patented items were arrived at independently the overall copying created a perception that they copied.
And Googorola and Samsung are the real rogues with their FRAND abuse.
Part of where this juries judgement seems to have come from is the sense that Samsung was copying more than they felt appropriate. I know that this might not be quite legally the correct approach but maybe it is the strength of using a jury that they can balance a total judgement rather than just summing individual damages.
The file sharing copyright judgements may be more sensible if a jury decided the damages.
The problem is that this case wasn't really about Samsung, and it wasn't really about a few companies, or the fine. This was a high profile case about a broken IP system, a rogue gorilla and an outcome that stifles innovation in the technical arena (not just smartphones). You don't think someone will think twice before even going near Apple again, regardless of the validity (or prior art) of the patent? I am incredulous that anyone could have come to the conclusion of this juror, particularly someone with a tech background.
Hopefully, this won't be the last battle that could turn this madness around.