tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7280258421454766766..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Proprietary damages for copyright infringement? This judge is not convertedVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29112489571187469972013-02-08T09:05:30.984+00:002013-02-08T09:05:30.984+00:00"The proceeds of an infringement might be out..."The proceeds of an infringement might be out of all proportion to the profits generated (e.g. because of the cost of raw materials used in the infringing product)." - surely noone could consider requesting or awarding damages for that...<br /><br />Actually, this is reminsiscent of a principle in Jewish Civil Law -<br />זה נהנה ולזה לא חסר - benefitting where the rights owner doesn't suffer a loss. Justification for not applying copyright law in certain cases, often wrongly in my opinion. <br /><br />OK, maybe not a constructive comment. BTW, if I didn't know the IP KAT better, I'd have followed the link to the 20th Century Fox looking for Samantha in her undies (or without).Dr Michael Factorhttp://www.ipfactor.co.ilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64135723477288049672013-02-07T21:04:43.694+00:002013-02-07T21:04:43.694+00:00I haven't read the judgment yet, so apologies ...I haven't read the judgment yet, so apologies if my point was raised, but just not referred to in Francis's analysis.<br />Surely if a constructive trust was a remedy available under the CDPA, (even indirectly through common law) surely there would be no point in having account of profits as a remedy. Clearly the two are mutually exclusive, and if that is Parliament had intended, they would have needed to define when one remedy would apply in preference to the other.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com