4 ms·
Than there was no harm, because a lost sale is the only harm there could be. (Or more accurately, the value of the patent as a % of the cost of an item sold)
by jivatmanx 14y ago
Than there was no harm, because a lost sale is the only harm there could be.
(Or more accurately, the value of the patent as a % of the cost of an item sold)
- dangrossman 14y agoThis is the comment thread of an article about how non-practicing entities now make up the majority of patent infringement cases in court. You're asserting that every single one of them is represented by a law firm which is making up a nonexistent class of damages, and every judge who has awarded damages to a non-praticing entity in the past made a mistake in doing so. That's not right, obviously. Title 35 of the United States Code states that "the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer". Thus the basis of the damages is unpaid royalties for licensing the patent, not lost sales. The court may award damages for lost sales or anything else it considers "adequate to compensate for the infringement", but the ONE statutory-defined harm is the one you're saying doesn't exist.
- jivatmanx 14y ago>(The value of the patent as a % of the cost of an item sold) = Royalty Lost Sale if the patent constitutes the entire value of the item, theoretically possible in something like software.