tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post3180233163920944127..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Cornell Damage Apportionment Making Way Through CourtsTwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-10030715208838514852009-05-02T08:09:00.000-05:002009-05-02T08:09:00.000-05:00I thoroughly enjoyed Damages TV Show and my only c...I thoroughly enjoyed <A HREF="http://damages.edogo.com/" REL="nofollow">Damages TV Show</A> and my only comment is that it bounces around a little and at one point I lost track of whether it was the past or the present - this is probably more a reflection on my powers of concentration. i also watch this show online. i also like this show.Really it's an amazing and fantastic tv show.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-63001519436483876962009-04-17T14:39:00.000-05:002009-04-17T14:39:00.000-05:00Please excuse the form of the below comment...it i...Please excuse the form of the below comment...it is a reply to someone who posted this blog piece to one of the two large Yahoo finance groups following Star Scientific, and I do not have time to edit it.<br /><br />See<br /><br />http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mb?s=STSI<br /><br />and look for the message title<br /><br /> "STSI RJR and Cornell decision" <br /><br />[My "agenda" is ... I am a scientist, not an attorney, invested in Star and have followed this matter since 1998 ... and I'd like to get comments on what I bring up if you have the time. Thanks.]<br /><br />Re: STSI RJR and Cornell decision by Rader (1)<br /> <br />Thanks.<br /><br />Who are you, may I ask (that is, how may we assess your agenda)? Guess I'm asking what made you decided to go to the trouble to post what you did here today. The courtesy of an answer is appreciated.<br /><br />Who is Peter Zura who writes the "blog" you referenced, so that we may assess his agenda? (I saw no attempt to put forth any counter argument by Star to balance his splash of RAI's position, so I presume he has one.)<br /><br />Ask yourself this question: could RJR/RAI simply stop using the alleged infringing process (which their own atty hire said IS infringing) and go back to manufacturing all high TSNA cigarettes? Why not? RAI's apparent position here would be that there's no consumer demand for lowered TSNA in their cigarettes. The consumer, in fact, can tell absolutely NO difference in the cigarettes as they were before the INDUSTRY WIDE change in curing for low TSNAs and as they are now. Therefor there is NOTHING preventing RAI, under the "simpleton" theory of "consumer demand" as the driver for adoption of the process, that prevents RAI from simply reverting to its former practices, is there?<br /><br />So why don't they just DO IT ... go back to using non-infringing, high TSNA tobacco?<br /><br />Everyone who knows anything about this matter knows they do not and will not because they CANNOT! Why not? One word: "LIABILITY".<br /><br />The Cornell/HP case completely lacks this element. It CHANGES EVERYTHING.<br /><br />PLUS, "tobacco" is THE ESSENCE of each and every instance of product sold by RAI. Few consumers would call a filter and an empty paper tube "a cigarette" ... and NONE would bother to "smoke" one. RAI cannot make their top selling cigarette products (perhaps none of them) without "FLUE CURED TOBACCO" ... NOT AT ALL. They can't use other kinds of tobacco because their customers are extremely sensitive to "flavor" and the other properties that their exceedingly carefully blended products have. Thus without the infringing process, RAI would be essentially, if not literally, OUT OF BUSINESS. Certainly bankrupt. NOT HP.<br /><br />(continued) <br /><br /><br />Re: STSI RJR and Cornell decision by Rader (2)<br /> <br />(continued)<br /><br />The JUDGE (Rader) notes at<br /><br />http://271patent.blogspot.com/2009/04/pa...<br /><br />that<br /><br />"Notably, Cornell chose this hypothetical royalty base in favor of another alternative more clearly relevant to the value of the patented invention—the revenue Hewlett-Packard would have earned had it sold each infringing processor as just that, a processor, without any additional noninfringing components."<br /><br />This seems to tell the tale: RAI, due to liability considerations, COULD NOT HAVE SOLD ANY OF ITS INFRINGING PRODUCTS WITHOUT USING THE INFRINGING PROCESS in the period sued for OR SINCE because of liability considerations. PERIOD. My God, it's simple: IF THEY COULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE!<br /><br />I have a writing in the making (that I may or may not need to post ... elaborates on points made here) that I think clearly shows that in this case of a hidden defect in a product that the consumer cannot detect (cannot tell the difference if the defect is present or absent), a defect that virtually the whole world of science agrees will make most consumers of the product sick, and kill many of them, then "liability" IS IN FACT a kind of consumer demand.<br /><br />That is, liability is "back end" consumer demand, as acutely perceived by RAI, and that IT ALONE is the cause of RAI infringing, continuing to infringe, and HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE in the matter. They MUST do so to stay in business.<br /><br />It appears to me (I am not an attorney, however) that these facts completely removes this case from the scope of Cornell case above, especially in recognition of the quote by the judge in that case I cite above.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />(I am an investor in Star.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com