Free
Message: Re: Markman
9
Apr 15, 2009 07:31PM
1
Apr 16, 2009 03:39AM

Apr 16, 2009 03:56AM

silversurfer, I find your thought to be an interesting one for discussion. I too have been wrestling a bit with that particular development. I would generally agree with your view on this but allow me to speculate from another angle...

Tier 1 and 2 have been discussed a lot even though we don’t really understand what it means. To me it means how easy the case is to make against a potential infringer. In relative terms, proving infringement in a Tier 1 case should be expected to be much easier than in Tier 2. And I think the patents themselves essentially make that distinction... that is, I would define ‘445 and ‘108 as Tier 2. Not that we couldn’t go after Samsung on those patents, but DM has simply decided not to (and the more I think about it, probably never intended to as others have also said). Tier 2 will probably get its own Markman somewhere down the road but Samsung will not be involved. I’m fine with that so long as we can still put the screws to them on the remaining (Tier 1) patents.

If we can push Samsung through Markman, I think there could be plenty of value from a favorable ruling on the Tier 1 patents just considering the remaining big cell phone manufacturers of which Nokia and Motorola immediately come to mind. The ones who REALLY got off cheap in my opinion was LG Electronics. Maybe if Samsung had settled first, DM would be taking LG to Markman. Who knows?

Bottom line is that I still hope they go all the way with Samsung... even if it means they don’t file against any new infringers until after next February. I’m willing to wait a little longer if it means a key decision in our favor and a lot more money when all is said and done.

- Sinkman

3
Apr 16, 2009 09:49AM
2
Apr 16, 2009 11:00AM
6
Apr 16, 2009 11:11AM
5
Apr 16, 2009 11:35AM
1
Apr 16, 2009 12:02PM

Apr 16, 2009 12:46PM
6
Apr 16, 2009 01:00PM
3
Apr 16, 2009 01:25PM
1
Apr 16, 2009 01:31PM
2
Apr 16, 2009 01:32PM
2
Apr 16, 2009 01:39PM
2
Apr 16, 2009 01:43PM
1
Apr 16, 2009 02:16PM
1
Apr 16, 2009 02:20PM
4
Apr 16, 2009 02:21PM

Apr 16, 2009 02:24PM

Apr 16, 2009 03:05PM

Apr 16, 2009 04:34PM
1
Apr 16, 2009 06:59PM

Apr 16, 2009 07:21PM

Apr 16, 2009 07:25PM
2
Apr 16, 2009 09:36PM

Apr 17, 2009 09:12AM

Apr 17, 2009 09:28AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply