I agree that, on a fairly generic level, the submission outlines areas
of infringement. But, I thought that legally, more specifics would be required
to pinpoint actual direct violations, rather than the generalizations
that appear as it stands. I thought that certain products, their usage and
an idea of sales volume would have been mentioned.
I assume that in the damages part of the trial, Mr Fink will go on in
even further depth to argue that Company A sold X amount of $$$ worth of
specific goods which lead to copyright infringements, in the time between the
patent was taken out and the time the company was formally notified of
the infringement, and is liable for Y% of sales in damages. Furthermore,in
light of continued infringements after notification of the patent's existence,
Company A is liable for treble times Y% of sales, between then and the
present, in compensation for flagrant ongoing violations of the patent.
Shame you aren't an attorney David, because I'm sure that we would all like to
hear a legal opinion about the procedings. I find that reading the transcripts
of trials and other documents written in "legalese" is a brain draining
task, and I would appreciate an informed commentary written in a more
simplified style.
Anyhow, hang in there gifted ones. Each great journey comprises of
one step at a time. Philosophically yours,
Durro |
