That's not what "strawman" means. And I know that he just meant patent cases... the problem is that the criticism he used applies to all cases. That was my whol

That's not what "strawman" means. And I know that he just meant patent cases... the problem is that the criticism he used applies to all cases. That was my whole point. > CMU was not deprived of anything by Marvell using the same pattern CMU was deprived of a reasonable royalty under the law. What does being made whole mean if not being granted what the law guarantees? > The focus on arbitrary jail time and fines paid to government versus restoring victims is one thing which needs to be rebooted. This has nothing to do with patent cases. Are you saying criminal law also needs a reboot? > If justice was a service being paid for and we implement a loser-pays doctrine, as has always been the case in common law, we wouldn't see a lot of these patent cases, besides the fact that IP cannot exist without a state to grant the monopoly. I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Loser-pays has some advantages, but it also has some serious disadvantages. As for IP requiring a state to grant the monopoly, I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise, and it has nothing to do with loser-pays. I'm just confused by your comment.