This entire case is very disappointing because I am bearing
witness to just how truly power hungry Apple has become as a company. I am not a fan of Apple products (and this
does not help at all), but even from a neutral standpoint it is easy to see
that Apple is trying to monopolize the electronics market in their favor. They are literally eliminating the
competition through law, and essentially creating a market where they are the
only distributes of the product. This
negates any decision making on the consumer’s part. Imagine walking into your local electronics
department and being presented with one type of television, one type of gaming
system, one type of phone, etc. When we
eliminate competition, we eliminate a means of bettering products through
comparison.
Through reading the blogs provided it seems that this court decision was also extremely hasty; the entire decision made by the jury only took three days. While this may not seem like a short amount of time for a court case, consider that most jurors take three days just to look over the terms, conditions, rules and regulations of the case before diving in to making a verdict. There were more than 700 questions that span over 100 pages of material. Although Apple claimed that many of the jurors were tech savvy, their hastiness caused mistakes like awarding damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE when it did not infringe in any viable way. This 2 million dollar mistake could have been one of many made, and it is relieving to know that more will be looked into this.
Lastly, the biggest curiosity I have is a point brought up in the 3rd article by Pamela Jones. The instructions for the jury mentioned:
“The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty.”
Apple is clearly ignoring this rule, and the 2 million dollar hasty mistake is clear evidence that Apple’s lawyers are trying to bend the rules in their favor. According to Jones this case is not anywhere near over due to the inconsistencies made by these jurors. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, and for the sake of the future of technology I hope that Apple lessens its grip on a market that can only improve through trial and error from many different companies with –noticeably- different ideas.
Through reading the blogs provided it seems that this court decision was also extremely hasty; the entire decision made by the jury only took three days. While this may not seem like a short amount of time for a court case, consider that most jurors take three days just to look over the terms, conditions, rules and regulations of the case before diving in to making a verdict. There were more than 700 questions that span over 100 pages of material. Although Apple claimed that many of the jurors were tech savvy, their hastiness caused mistakes like awarding damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE when it did not infringe in any viable way. This 2 million dollar mistake could have been one of many made, and it is relieving to know that more will be looked into this.
Lastly, the biggest curiosity I have is a point brought up in the 3rd article by Pamela Jones. The instructions for the jury mentioned:
“The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty.”
Apple is clearly ignoring this rule, and the 2 million dollar hasty mistake is clear evidence that Apple’s lawyers are trying to bend the rules in their favor. According to Jones this case is not anywhere near over due to the inconsistencies made by these jurors. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, and for the sake of the future of technology I hope that Apple lessens its grip on a market that can only improve through trial and error from many different companies with –noticeably- different ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment