Big Win for Doug Cawley/McCool Smith on behalf of VHC v. AAPL
and demonstrates how full of it skibum and others were when they argued over and over again on this board that a major company can get away with ignoring other's patents while developing the same technolgy and that they are trained not to look and thus insulated somehow from liability ... guess it's not that simple, eh? you phoney "lawyer"
C'mon Todd, show a fellow long some love! Like you, I'm now cheering for PRKR success!
But I can't just let idiotic statements like yours go by, no matter how much it is against my economic interests. You completely miss two points: one big, one small.
The small point: no one has ever said that ignoring another company's patents has a bearing on infringement, that goes to the issue of whether any infringement is willful. As I said a while back, it is standard practice for companies to avoid looking at the patents held by others so as to avoid being found to be willfully infringing. AFAIK Apple wasn't held to willfully infringe in this case (though I admit that I haven't looked too deeply - I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong).
The big point: does it escape your notice that VirnetX successfully proved that the two richest tech companies in the world - Apple and Microsoft - infringed several patents in some core functionality in their biggest selling products (which products sell for hundreds of dollars each), and came away with a total of $570M? And that assumes the Apple verdict stands up on appeal. Now, tell me again how the PRKR case against QCOM will be worth billions? How do you justify the stock price?
I'll take 570mil plus the injunctions (which you are ignoring), plus maybe treble and fees and interest (which is huge), and i don't see that this is any less valuable of a product, there is evidence of an offer in qualcomm's files, produced in this litigation, whether you believe it or not, and witnesses will testify about it, and it will be admissible to reinforce the plaintiff's testimony, and you are talking out of both sides of your mouth (as usual) about the not looking at patents, which in this case would be after they were taught and knew about the existence of patents and likelihood of additional patents, and you are not a lawyer and you are not long, either