This seems reasonable to me. Even good news for Samsung. They can still sue for damages, so the more infringing products Apple sells, the more money Samsung will collect.
Samsung’s problem is they don’t want to win, they want Apple to lose. Even if Samsung gets 50c per iPhone sold, Apple still gets more. No iPhones sold means a bigger profit loss for Apple than Samsung. (Not saying Apple hasn’t pursued the exact same strategy as well.)
I don’t think product bans are ever a good way to deal with infringement. The court can find a price based on some mystical proportion of the product’s functionality dependent on the patent. Now, if it turns out that Apple owes Samsung $100 per iPhone, that would effectively ban the product. I’d be fine with that.
(I’m less certain about design patents. I’m less enthusiastic about design patents in general, but a product ban does seem like the right remedy. Deliberate brand confusion (assuming that’s the case) is not the same as two products sharing a feature.)
This seems reasonable to me. Even good news for Samsung. They can still sue for damages, so the more infringing products Apple sells, the more money Samsung will collect.
Samsung’s problem is they don’t want to win, they want Apple to lose. Even if Samsung gets 50c per iPhone sold, Apple still gets more. No iPhones sold means a bigger profit loss for Apple than Samsung. (Not saying Apple hasn’t pursued the exact same strategy as well.)
I don’t think product bans are ever a good way to deal with infringement. The court can find a price based on some mystical proportion of the product’s functionality dependent on the patent. Now, if it turns out that Apple owes Samsung $100 per iPhone, that would effectively ban the product. I’d be fine with that.
(I’m less certain about design patents. I’m less enthusiastic about design patents in general, but a product ban does seem like the right remedy. Deliberate brand confusion (assuming that’s the case) is not the same as two products sharing a feature.)