|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 03:25 AM EST |
How can a result be seen to be 'fair' or 'just' when the court system finds one
has willfully infringed a patent that is later invalidated by the very authority
(and the term is used loosely) that issues this now invalid and supposedly
willfully infringed patent?
To me it's like someone is convicted of murder but after the guilty verdict is
passed, the murdered person is found alive and well holidaying on some beach (or
some other evidence clearly indicates he could never have been guilty of murder
so the guilty person is still roaming the streets).
In these later cases, there is action taken to correct the injustice and let the
innocent out of prison (if he hasn't been executed already as many an innocent
have) but where patents are concerned it's just the law (said in a judge dread
voice) and no action is taken to correct this obvious injustice.
An unjust conviction is still unjust and should always be corrected for justice
to be seen to be done. This principle should be just as true for civil and
criminal cases.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|