Having had a quick scan through the infringement claim (thanks
Angelique for the reference source), it does seem to lack the
specific examples of infringements that I expected to see (and perhaps
the defence lawyers expected too).
What I mean is that perhaps there should have been detailed claims stating that
during the year dot, Product A was sold by company Z to X number of
customers, X1 number of which utilized their computer modem to activate
the optional pay-for-use part of programme B incorporated in Product A...
...and so on for each specific item for each specific company.
A huge undertaking I realize, but one which the defence lawyers and
Judge might quite rightly demand. This case could go on for a long time
yet, if these are the sort of specificities required to be evaluated in turn,
in order to prosecute the infringements of the Freeney patent. I am
assuming that this might be the sort of supplementary information demanded
at the last teleconference in the New York procedings.
I guess it's now a case of :-
Good morning Mr Fink. Your mission, should you choose to accept it.....
Regards,
Durro.
P.S. The meter is still running at defence HQ. I'm sure that by the end
of all this, there will be a few more new BMW's parked outside certain
legal firms' offices, courtesy of fees incurred by Apogee, Broderbund, Compuserve etc. |
