It is true that there are words of present grant in this law; but, in construing it, we are not to look at any single phrase in it, but to its whole scope, in order to arrive at the intention of the makers of it. "It is better always," says Judge Sharswood, "to adhere to a plain common-sense interpretation of the words of a statute, than to apply to them refined and technical rules of grammatical construction. Gyger's Estate, 65 Penn. St. 312.
and
This interpretation, although seemingly contrary to the letter of the statute, is really within its reason and spirit.
Where the Supreme Court differs from you is that it sees a phone as being more than just a single patented object. Here's the law itself:
"That hereafter, during the term of letters-patent for a design, it shall be unlawful for any person other than the owner of said letters-patent without the license of such owner, to apply the design secured by such letters-patent, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or to sell or expose for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation shall, without the license of the owner, have been applied, knowing that the same has been so applied. Any person violating the provisions, or either of them, of this section, shall be liable in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars; and in case the total profit made by him from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied, exceeds the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars he shall be further liable for the excess of such profit over and above the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars; and the full amount of such liability may be recovered by the owner of the letters-patent to his own use, in any circuit court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, either by an action at law or upon a bill in equity for an injunction to restrain such infringement
I think we can both agree that if Samsung had sold a phone chassis that copied Apple's design then all profits for said chassis would go to Apple. However, this is only a component of another product -- their phone. If a car company copies some other companies' bumper design, and then uses these bumpers on their next line of cars, why would the profits for the entire car be forfeited? Only in the case where it can be proved that sale of these new cars hinged specifically and only on the use of these bumpers would all profits be forfeit. For me, the key line is:
profit made by him from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied
As for precedence, see Haydenfeldt v. Daney Co., 93 U. S. 629. Another good read is Some Questions under the Design Patent Act of 1887 by Frederic H. Betts (The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 5 (May, 1892), pp. 181-192)
The Legislature may write laws, but the Courts will still interpret them.
Sensors printed with this ink would magnetically attack to each other when a rip or tear occurs, automatically fixing a device at the first sign of disintegration.
Someone get the the editors (slashdot and linked article) some of that self-healing ink so that I do not have to put up with these typos ("broken words") any more.
It'd still be better than calling Comcast
I'm pretty sure a significant number of people would put Comcast in the same category as criminals.
"I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.
Dave.
Would you touch my bum one last time?"
Dave: I'm sorry, HAL. I'm afraid I cannot do that....
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
