RE:RE:RE:RE:Did judges wimp out?Valid question and it's common sense that it should be worth something meaningful as a fraction of the price of the device.
But courts love things that connect together in concrete ways. I've wondered how it might play out if Wilan just came to a jury and said something like, oh:
"The phone doesn't work anywhere near as well (and give them a demo) without our IP and 1% of the phone price is a reasonable amount for us on a common sense level. Yes or no?"
Probably most juries would say "yes." But I suspect judges would tend to be uncomfortable with this.
Here's a counterargument. Suppose there were 150 pieces of distinct IP that have been infringed upon in the making of some Apple phone. (Hardly impossible!!) The absence of ANY of these 150 pieces of IP will leave the phone not working well. So should the holders of these bits of IP each get 1%?
Well, clearly that would be impossible because that would add up to 150% of the price of the phone.
Wilan might respond that their IP is far too important to fit into an example like that--i.e., their IP, given its centrality to the working of the phone, would just HAVE to be much more important than most of the other 149 pieces of IP.
Still, you can see how a judge might have a problem with gifting 1% to Wilan because it happens to feel right to a jury.
The judge wants something more concrete. That's where expert Kennedy came in. And Wilan's problems began.