2 ms·
I found that a bit confusing as well. I wonder if the court was saying that a ban was inappropriate, and instead the remedy should have been something like a fi
by stock_toaster 14y ago
I found that a bit confusing as well. I wonder if the court was saying that a ban was inappropriate, and instead the remedy should have been something like a fine for every device sold that infringed (until such infringement was removed)?
- stephengillie 14y agoA big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities, regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court.
- stock_toaster 14y ago> A big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities I agree. Assume infringement of something, lets say a patented chemical in particular competitors dog food. If the court claims it is not a 'causal nexus' (people don't buy the dog food for the chemical), and that if preventing the competitor from selling the dogfood was not appropriate (no causal nexus) then I guess the remaining "relief" would be entirely monetary? If the infringement continued after a finding, maybe it would become willful at some point meaning higher fines? > , regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court. I don't see how this portion of your comment is relevant.