Aus and thread, CF product questions and legal eagle queries:
- In yesterday's NYT, there was a full page ad for a HP Photo Smart C200 Digital Camera and HP DeskJet 832C for a combined price of $399. The not-so-fine-print referred to storage of "up to 80 photos on a single reusable memory card.: Is that SNDK's?
- Today's NYT's Circuits Section showed several new products, including an MP3 Player for the car, where "...the storage is managed by Compact flash II memory cards; the same slots can accommodate IBM's new micro drives for removable storage. the player has no on-board memory for audio storage, but it does have two card slots...."
In addition, a news summary of a Video Blaster Webcam Go, a $150 digital-camera-to-go for a PC, "...with four megabytes of on-board memory...." And a low price UMAX camera.
- Aus, as far as legal eagles, and to supplement Art's observations a day or two ago:
What intrigued me most was SNDK's motion for partial summary judgement, which might convey one of several implications: (i) that part of SNDK's patent infringement claim is stronger (that part on which summary judgement is sought) than on other parts or patents; (ii) or that the patent(s) on which infringement is claimed are, in part, obvious from the filing and patented method of use or mechanism and, in part, non-obvious and must be supplemented with non-patented trade secrets or know-how; (iii) or that evidence extrinsic to the patent must be introduced and established (this would be the non-summary judgement portion of SNDK's case). Note that (ii) could be a function of (i) and (iii) could be a function of (ii) in the above queries.
Disclosure: Patent law practice is not my field, is highly specialized; to boot, I have not read any of the underlying papers or motions. Perhaps you could provide me with a link?
The motion for preliminary injunction would be common under the circumstances in an attempt to preserve the status quo (it doesn't really). The filing of the bond MIGHT be pro forma under the circumstances, or, as Art suggests, it might be an indication that the judge has made a preliminary evaluation of the case on the merits. I would have to read the motion practice and the judge's decisions thereon to get a better feel for which it might be.
I agree with Art with respect to his point that, because litigation can so sap the resources, will and clarity of business plan of a wronged party, and that breaches of law or contracts, or patent infringement or coming to court with "dirty hands" can be so hard to establish conclusively, the "wronged party" often comes away with much less than it should and the party with "dirty hands" often gets away with much more than it should. Such are the imperatives of the commercial world, where parties are given "fair" leeway in the manner in which they compete. Courts are generally reluctant to impose economically harmful (crippling money damages) remedies or coercive sanctions (injunctions) on an ongoing business unless the evidence is relatively clear, preponderant and unencumbered by questionable or ambiguous conduct by the plaintiff.
Unfortunately, a strategy of delay and time consuming motion practice can be a powerful strategy, foiling those who believe they have the "equities" on their side.
Steve |
