4 ms·

You do know that lawsuits are based on actual damages right ? So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with

You do know that lawsuits are based on actual damages right ? So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with you is ridiculous. The real ones to worry are the Lodsys of the world who sue you for just less than what it would cost to hire a lawyer e.g. $1000. Those companies serve no purpose and need to be regulated out of existence.

cageface 14y ago
So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with you is ridiculous. Unless you're a small German café or something: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-sue-small-german-cafe-logo-205037880.html http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-s... But why let inconvenient facts get between you and your religion?
- taligent 14y ago
  Religion ? Nice. Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Also a cease and desist isn't a lawsuit. This is well established law.
  - cageface 14y ago
    Clearly you can't be too small for Apple to consider "bothering" with you. And if this all really about values and not money, as Tim Cook claims, why should it make any difference how big you are?
  - jellicle 14y ago
    >Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Nope.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      Great rebuttal. I think I missed your sources though.
  - esolyt 14y ago
    Apparently there is also another FACT. It is the fact that Apple bothers with you even if you are a small company. You claimed that the idea of this happening is ridiculous. Yet, they just showed you an example of this happening. I'm having a hard time trying to understand your argument now. Are you claiming the example is invalid or have you changed your argument and now claiming that Apple does that but it is okay for Apple to do that?
    - ahlatimer 14y ago
      If you infringe on Apple's trademark, big or small, you're likely to draw their ire. If you infringe on Apple's patents and you're a small player, you're probably not going to. Why? Trademarks have to be defended or they can be lost (not 100% accurate, but close enough). You can't say "I'll only sue companies who are bigger than x" when it comes to trademarks and still hold onto them. That isn't the case for patents. You can selectively sue (or not sue at all) and the patents remain valid.
josteink 14y ago
1 billion dollars for a teenie-weenie software UI implementation detail in a otherwise huge and complex device which is made of thounsands of major and minor components, both software and hardware. I don't care at what "scale" this was. This is ridiculous and we should not have to accept it.
- lttlrck 14y ago
  If it is so "teenie-weenie" why did Samsung insist on breaking the law by copying it? If you don't like the law don't do business here.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    It's a civil suit - they're not "breaking the law" since there's no clear right or wrong answer until you get to court.
codeka 14y ago
> lawsuits are based on actual damages Not if it goes to a jury, cause apparently they're free to ignore the judges instructions on damages in order to "make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist... We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
- talmand 14y ago
  Never mind the fact that it costs money (potentially a lot) to defend yourself, which a single developer most likely will not have. I'm fairly sure a lawyer will expect payment, win or lose.

cageface 14y ago

So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with you is ridiculous. Unless you're a small German café or something: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-sue-small-german-cafe-logo-205037880.html http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-s... But why let inconvenient facts get between you and your religion?

taligent 14y ago
Religion ? Nice. Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Also a cease and desist isn't a lawsuit. This is well established law.
- cageface 14y ago
  Clearly you can't be too small for Apple to consider "bothering" with you. And if this all really about values and not money, as Tim Cook claims, why should it make any difference how big you are?
- jellicle 14y ago
  >Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Nope.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    Great rebuttal. I think I missed your sources though.
- esolyt 14y ago
  Apparently there is also another FACT. It is the fact that Apple bothers with you even if you are a small company. You claimed that the idea of this happening is ridiculous. Yet, they just showed you an example of this happening. I'm having a hard time trying to understand your argument now. Are you claiming the example is invalid or have you changed your argument and now claiming that Apple does that but it is okay for Apple to do that?
  - ahlatimer 14y ago
    If you infringe on Apple's trademark, big or small, you're likely to draw their ire. If you infringe on Apple's patents and you're a small player, you're probably not going to. Why? Trademarks have to be defended or they can be lost (not 100% accurate, but close enough). You can't say "I'll only sue companies who are bigger than x" when it comes to trademarks and still hold onto them. That isn't the case for patents. You can selectively sue (or not sue at all) and the patents remain valid.

josteink 14y ago

1 billion dollars for a teenie-weenie software UI implementation detail in a otherwise huge and complex device which is made of thounsands of major and minor components, both software and hardware. I don't care at what "scale" this was. This is ridiculous and we should not have to accept it.

lttlrck 14y ago
If it is so "teenie-weenie" why did Samsung insist on breaking the law by copying it? If you don't like the law don't do business here.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  It's a civil suit - they're not "breaking the law" since there's no clear right or wrong answer until you get to court.

codeka 14y ago

> lawsuits are based on actual damages Not if it goes to a jury, cause apparently they're free to ignore the judges instructions on damages in order to "make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist... We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

talmand 14y ago
Never mind the fact that it costs money (potentially a lot) to defend yourself, which a single developer most likely will not have. I'm fairly sure a lawyer will expect payment, win or lose.