On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:04:20 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: > In article <e2dbl.724$9t6....@newsfe10.iad>, > Thufir Hawat <hawat.thu...@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).
Again, the settlement terms here wouldn't be evidence in a lawsuit not between tomcat and microsoft, which is what I was replying to -- a comment about the jury. -Thufir _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss