[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
From: |
Tim Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:04:20 -0700 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <E2DBl.724$9t6.558@newsfe10.iad>,
Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote:
> Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How could
> this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case? The
> point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury.
Suppose Microsoft is suing you over FAT, and you won't settle, so it is
going to trial. One of the things both sides do at trial is argue what
they think the damages should be.
What Microsoft has licensed the patent for to others is very relevant to
your argument, and you'll have asked for the details on all licensing of
the patent as part of your discovery requests. (Well, *you* won't ask.
Your lawyers will ask, and the lawyers and your damages expert will get
to see the answers, but *you* might not get to see them--all you might
see is an average that the damages expert computes and testifies about).
--
--Tim Smith
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, (continued)
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, Thufir Hawat, 2009/04/04
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, amicus_curious, 2009/04/04
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, Thufir Hawat, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, amicus_curious, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, Sermo Malifer, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, amicus_curious, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, dr_nikolaus_klepp, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, amicus_curious, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, Sermo Malifer, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, Rjack, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle,
Tim Smith <=
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, Thufir Hawat, 2009/04/06
- Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle, Tim Smith, 2009/04/06