> I don't think Apple willfully infringed anything here.
Apple knew this was coming. See the stuff in the case about the Sherman act. They're "willfully infringing" to the extent that they are "refusing to end negotiations and pay the fee Samsung claims they own."
Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading.
>Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading.
That has never made sense to me, though. Unless Samsung could prove that Apple was actually assisting in designing the silicon of the chips(in which case, patent exhaustion would not apply), they were suing the wrong people. The infringement would have been on Intel/Qualcomm/whoever is supplying the chips.
Apple knew this was coming. See the stuff in the case about the Sherman act. They're "willfully infringing" to the extent that they are "refusing to end negotiations and pay the fee Samsung claims they own."
Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading.