View Single Post
Old 11-06-2009, 04:40 AM   #50
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 74,129
Karma: 315558334
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Oasis
Again, this isn't a patent case. It's a breech of contract case.

For B&N to win, they just have to have convincing evidence that they were working on the nook with substantially the same features as it has now, BEFORE they signed the NDA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
There's also the question of whether the defendant, even if they are confident they don't actually infringe a patent, can afford to take the risk that the jury will get it wrong and find against them. Patent cases often involve deeply technical details, and in the US, at least, are tried by a non-technical jury which frequently doesn't have a chance of understanding the details.

The odds are very much stacked in favour of the plaintiff - they will typically sue for infringement of multiple claims, with a decision being required by the jury for each one. It often takes just one claim to be found in favour of the plaintiff to kill off a product (or company!), so if the jury doesn't really understand, and effectively tosses a coin for each claim, the chances of the defendant winning them all are minimal.

/JB
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote