“There are two alternative categories of infringement compensation: the patentee’s lost profits and the reasonable royalty the patentee would have received through arms-length bargaining.”

We have repeatedly preached against the sin of greed. Well, we now have a case where the plaintiff clearly did not demand enough. (Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. BMW North America, LLC et al.)

Affinity is a small – two person – firm which owns two patents directed to “a system and method for connecting and integrating a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player, with a second electronic device such as a car’s sound system.” It does not practice the patented inventions.

Recently, two giant corporations spent millions of dollars in a courtroom argument primarily directed to the value of a “date-picker” – we’re speaking here about a “graphical user interface tool,” not a mechanical device for harvesting dates or an on-line service for matching up persons of opposite sexes. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Gateway, Inc. et al.