Free
Message: Re: PACER Samsung
12
Mar 06, 2009 12:49PM
1
Mar 06, 2009 12:57PM
1
Mar 06, 2009 01:52PM
3
Mar 06, 2009 02:23PM
2
Mar 06, 2009 03:41PM
3
Mar 06, 2009 04:10PM
7
Mar 06, 2009 08:25PM

Mar 06, 2009 10:40PM
8
Mar 06, 2009 11:05PM
8
Mar 07, 2009 01:22AM
7
Mar 07, 2009 03:38AM
2
Mar 07, 2009 03:41AM
5
Mar 07, 2009 04:48AM
3
Mar 07, 2009 05:07AM

Mar 07, 2009 06:06AM
2
Mar 07, 2009 06:25AM

My guess is that SAMSUNG is putting up a fuss because DM is asking for a much higher settlement number than its previous settlements. If a company the size of SAMSUNG could put this to bed for a mere $4 million then they likely would have done so by now, in this economic climate, as did the previous six infringers.(well at least the first 3 as the next 3 remain unknown).

Why defend yourself facing mounting court costs when you can settle, save the company an unknown expense and get cross licensing access?

And why RISK possibly losing in court and facing HUGE exposure and negative press?

Because EDIG wants more this time. It's almost always about the money. Up until now the first 6 were cookie cutter.

Why would SAMSUNG be different?


5
Mar 07, 2009 06:43AM
2
Mar 07, 2009 07:36AM
2
Mar 07, 2009 07:49AM
2
Mar 07, 2009 08:18AM
5
Mar 07, 2009 08:55AM
3
Mar 07, 2009 09:08AM

Mar 07, 2009 04:14PM

Mar 08, 2009 08:47AM
1
Mar 08, 2009 09:19AM

Mar 08, 2009 09:22AM
1
Mar 08, 2009 09:40AM
9
Mar 08, 2009 06:14PM
1
Mar 08, 2009 06:30PM

Mar 08, 2009 07:09PM

Mar 08, 2009 07:19PM
4
Mar 08, 2009 07:44PM
5
Mar 08, 2009 08:33PM
6
Mar 09, 2009 04:01AM
1
Mar 09, 2009 09:35AM

Mar 09, 2009 09:40AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply