InvestorsHub Logo

Darth Trader

02/23/16 1:01 PM

#42851 RE: righton21 #42849

That's an exact quote too!

martin33

02/23/16 1:25 PM

#42852 RE: righton21 #42849

HA HA. What an IDIOT.

The scary part is Joe is DUMBER than Steve.

They cheat.
They lie.
They steal.

The amazing thing is they actually thought they
could get away with all their ILLEGAL DEEDS.

pantherj

02/23/16 1:42 PM

#42854 RE: righton21 #42849

Nonsense!

Ecomike

02/24/16 12:55 AM

#42863 RE: righton21 #42849

The boot brothers might want to watch the pending supreme court decision this summer on triple damages for stealing patents, Intellectual property and trade secrets :-)

Interesting news on the value of IFUS assets today as the value of patent lawsuits is debated by the US Supreme court!!!

http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=70506385

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court considered whether to make it easier to win larger financial damages in patent-infringement cases, an issue that has split the Obama administration from a number of leading technology companies.

The justices during an hour long oral argument spent much of their time voicing competing concerns about the consequences of the court's eventual opinion, which will address the availability of punitive damages when someone intentionally infringes on a patented invention. Punitive damages, financial awards that go beyond actual damages, are used in patent judgments to punish particularly egregious behavior.

Justice Stephen Breyer said opening the door wider to such damages in patent cases could deter innovation and create crippling liability for small businesses and tech startups that can't afford sophisticated patent lawyers. Patent law is "designed to help the small businessman, not to hurt him," he said.

Raising points on the other side was Justice Elena Kagan, who said a legal standard adopted by a lower court that hears patent cases is so stringent that winning punitive damages is tough even when a company purposely copies another firm's patented product. As long as there is some plausible legal defense for its actions, it can avoid punitive damages for bad behavior, she said.

"It seems to stick in the craw a bit," she added.

By the end of the hour, the court appeared to be searching for an outcome that would punish egregious patent infringers with punitive damages while still limiting awards in most patent cases to the actual monetary damages suffered by the patent holder.

Federal law says trial judges may award enhanced infringement damages up to three times the amount of actual damages in a case. The Supreme Court is deciding how much leeway judges have to conclude that such damages are appropriate.

There are two cases before the court on the issue. In one, medical device maker Stryker Corp. persuaded a jury that subsidiaries of rival Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc. willfully infringed its patents on battery-powered hand-held devices used to clean wounds. Jurors awarded $70 million in lost profits and the presiding judge then tripled the damages award.

In a second case, Halo Electronics Inc., which makes components used in computers and other devices, obtained $1.5 million in infringement damages from Pulse Electronics Corp., but not punitive damages.

In both cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the national venue for patent appeals, said the patent holders couldn't collect punitive damages because the defendants' legal defenses, while unsuccessful, weren't unreasonable or entirely baseless.

Lawyer Jeffrey Wall, arguing for Stryker and Halo, said the appeals court's approach makes punitive damages unattainable because a patent lawyer "can virtually always come up with some non-frivolous defense in litigation."

The Obama administration is supporting the patent holders' efforts to make punitive damages available in more circumstances. Justice Department lawyer Roman Martinez said the current Federal Circuit standard "creates an arbitrary loophole that allows some of the most egregious infringers to escape damages."

Lawyer Carter Phillips, arguing for Pulse and Zimmer, said loosening the current standard would cause significant problems and provide a boon to so-called patent trolls, which buy patents to assert in lawsuits instead of to make products. Making it easier to win punitive damages "will allow the trolls to go after every legitimate producer of products and services in this country," he said.

A wide range of tech companies filed briefs supporting Mr. Phillips's arguments, including Dell Inc., Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.'s Google, Intel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.

A decision is expected by the end of June.