Basically, the companies argue that a refusal to limit damages to infringing features could have huge impact in an era when consumer products incorporate many highly sophisticated components within a single device. That Samsung can be successfully sued over singular design features and forced to pay damages based on overall device sales rather than a portion of profits sets a dangerous precedent, the group argues.
I could see their point if Samsung had of taken one feature and incorporated it into a smartphone it designed. However, Samsung stole the entire phone—hardware, software, and everything else it could lay its grubby little hands on. They were caught and should pay.
Wow. Their argument for copying Apple’s features, “[the features are] a result of a few lines out of millions of code” are almost identical to the argument Microsoft and Intel’s lawyers tried to use when they blatantly stole QuickTime’s source code: “There is certainly a lot of speculation here in the valley as to why such a big hubbub is made over something that is a relatively small, minor piece of code.”
To that I respond with Apple’s Michael Mace’s reply: “By repeating over and over that only an insignificant amount of code was involved, Intel seems to be implying that pirating a small amount of code is not a big deal. I presume Intel competitors like AMD and Cyrix are taking notes here.”
I sense that the likes of eBay, Facebook and HP would not join this fray without strong reasons (aka self-interests). What are they? Whatever skin they have in Samsung’s financial health is small. Furthermore, Samsung can afford 10 times the damages if not more. Interesting.
fairly sure that US legal procedure doesn’t give companies that were not part of a lawsuit an opinion regarding that suit.