Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle

[Tim Smith]

In article <E2DBl.724$9t6.558@newsfe10.iad>,
 Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote:
> Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement?  How could 
> this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case?  The 
> point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury.

Suppose Microsoft is suing you over FAT, and you won't settle, so it is 
going to trial.  One of the things both sides do at trial is argue what 
they think the damages should be.

What Microsoft has licensed the patent for to others is very relevant to 
your argument, and you'll have asked for the details on all licensing of 
the patent as part of your discovery requests.  (Well, *you* won't ask.  
Your lawyers will ask, and the lawyers and your damages expert will get 
to see the answers, but *you* might not get to see them--all you might 
see is an average that the damages expert computes and testifies about).

-- 
--Tim Smith