Did you guys see this? To make a long story short, Apple is challenging a verdict that could force them to pay ~$600M in damages to Mirror World, founded by Yale University computer-science Professor David Gelernter. (Interesting/sad fact: Prof. Gelernter was a survivor of a uni-bomber package attack).

According to the New York Times, a federal jury in Tyler, Tex., on Friday awarded the company, Mirror Worlds, $208.5 million in damages for each of the patents allegedly infringed by Apple. The litigation focused on the use of 1) “Cover Flow” (the cover art that magically floats left to right as you touch or point your cursor on the screen), 2) “Spotlight” (a kind of an end-all-be-all search for Mac computers), and 3) “Time Machine” (automatic backup utility).

For the visual folks out there, here is Figure 1 from US Patent 6006227, “Document stream operating system”:

Here’s what Cover Flow looks like on my Mac:

To those not in the know, I know what you are thinking– how does this even happen? How is $600M a reasonable remedy? How is a $200M reward even reasonable? Lawyers get a bad name, and I think these mega-judgments and misunderstanding of the system is one reason why.

Let me try to explain. The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) grants patents, which are NOT a monopoly, but actually a “negative right” that allows you to exclude others from practicing your patent for a limited duration. Basically the patent system in the US does not take kindly to willful infringement. “Willful” is a term of art, and it actually comes up in many different areas of the law. It is generally considered an intent element–a frame of mind. If one can prove that x company willfully infringed a patent, it entitles the patent holder to potentially three times the actual damages. Mirror will have to prove this by clear and convincing evidence–no easy task. Many times the general public will see stories about these mega verdicts. Usually they are entered in order to make a point, and act as a deterrent to potential infringers.

As a Mac user, I know that the technologies referenced are a major part of the Mac experience. I use Spotlight every day. When I think Coverflow, I think iTunes. In fact, I use iTunes almost every day (come to think of it, I use my iPod everyday, and they have Coverflow so I actually do use it everyday). TimeMachine is more of a background feature, but I recently used that too so I can honestly say that all three are pretty prevalent features. On the other hand, one could argue that these are more secondary features, in that Spotlight requires affirmative use, CoverFlow is not the default view, and that TimeMachine is simply a timed file saving utility. It’ll be interesting to see where this case goes.

One final thought–it might be tough to prove willfulness in light of the 2007 Seagate decision.

Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc. docket (Courtesy of Justia).

New York Times article here.

More on the clear and convincing standard, and its application to this case.

Article from Yale Daily News.