A law prof at a small school in the Golden State opined that the jury in Apple v. Samsung went Way Too Far when on August 24 it awarded Apple almost $1.05 billion after finding that Samsung copied -- very much on purpose -- Apple's smartphone designs.
His analysis? That an "average smartphone may arguably infringe as many as 250,000 patents, not to mention myriad copyrights and other design-related intellectual property."
His point? That "if the owners of all the 250,000 inventions that might be present in Samsung smartphones were awarded damages at the same level as Apple, Samsung would have to charge a ludicrous $2 million per phone just to break even."
His proof that the smartphone you hold in your hand right now "may arguably infringe as many as 250,000 patents"?
Okay, he offers none. But you have to believe that if he switched "may arguably infringe" to "does infringe", the number would have dropped. A lot.
In fact, when someone in Blawgletter's firm says "arguably" anything, the rest of us know that the person saying it will almost certainly lose the argument. Arguable means improbable. Or worse.
Which may explain why Samsung owes Apple more than $1 billion.