Replies to post #137071 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

MNTA

By proposing that the remedy for past infringement should take the form of a royalty on future sales of non-infringing goods you are asking for a remedy in equity.

Suggest this discussion is getting hung up in nuances that don't matter. Therefore i suggest we take this away from the exact form of the 'garnishment'. Would you agree that if an individual does not have adequate cash assets to pay a damage award that future income streams come into play? Whether that takes the form of imposing a judgement well in excess of cash and letting the payer borrow against future income streams or whether it takes the form of a settlement on royalties on other products or ... . Does it matter to MNTA?

I would suggest that what matters is:

Will the courts recognize future harm from past action. That unscrambling the egg is not possible via just removing the product? This is, I suspect, the primary issue?