There's a difference between justice and the law
While you have very accurately summarized the feelings of anyone associated with IDCC over the years of this journey, I don't know that it is relevant in the case before the ITC.
in my mind, the bottomline with the alj, he knows why he has a job. international, and/or foreign companies take advantage of U.S. companies' IP without paying for it. that's why the ITC was created, (i assume). he's shouldn't be looking for esoteric angles by which to absolve the abusers. he has seen the CCA decision that nok had been abusing idcc in multiple venues for years.
he gets it. teeth. my grandpa, what big teeth you have.
all the better to bite nok and sammy in their fat, overpaid asses.
The law is structured with all sorts of rules and procedures. There are often contradictory precedents to be considered and distinguished. Important information may be excluded because of the rule of law. For example, I believe that if one is acquitted of rape charges, that charge may not be brought up as evidence in a new rape case, although it seems fairly obvious to lay people that the prior case is an important fact. A confession or key evidence can be excluded because it was not obtained within the legal requirements. The reason I do not have a strong opinion about the outcome of the ITC case is that I do not know what information is most important and what is not. In my reading of the testimony (which obviously excludes day 1 and 2 and the private sessions) I did not see any reference to the pattern of engaging in every legal challenge available without regard to the merits of the case, not with the primary goal of winning, but primarily to delay the contract. The strategy is to delay payment (time value of money) and to force IDCC to settle for a lower amount than they deserve just to get the contract signed during our lifetime. Should this be a factor? Common sense says yes, but I don't know that it is relevant before the ITC. I hope if the case is a toss up under the ITC criteria, Judge Luckern will consider the tactics and strategy used by SAM and NOK and send a message that this type of stonewalling and refusal to negotiate in good faith will not be ignored by the ITC.
I do hope that on this occasion the law aligns with justice and Samsung faces the import ban. That will create time pressure on them to get a deal done. As we get close to November 25 I do think there's a good chance that threat will compel SAM to accept a fair settlement.
AI
