Slashdot Mirror
Preliminary ITC Ruling: Motorola Not In Violation of Apple's Patents
SpuriousLogic writes with a preliminary ruling in the ITC case between Apple and Motorola. Quoting eWeek: "Motorola is celebrating an initial triumph over Apple, after a U.S. International Trade Commission administrative law judge issued an initial determination (PDF) finding that Motorola Mobility has not violated any of the three patents listed in an October 2010 lawsuit Apple filed against the Droid maker. ... The determination isn't the final say ... in March, the ruling will be reviewed by a six-member ITC panel that will announce the ultimate ruling. However, according to Zacks Equity Research, it's unusual for the ITC panel, which has the power to block device imports, to contradict a judge's determination."
I don't know, perhaps if Apple would actually innovate and create something new they wouldn't have to resort to patent trolling and could afford to buy judges.
Well it's designed to raise the cost of entry by increasing the risks. Smaller companies that can afford to be more innovative then Apple have a huge disincentive to release new products out of the fear of an expensive law suit that they would be unable to fight.
Actually, small companies that can afford to be more innovative have a huge incentive to release new products out of the interest in being bought by one of the big players, who can then litigate amongst themselves. You're seriously expecting us to believe that some inventor is out there saying "gosh, I'd love to innovate, but then someone will give me millions of dollars to retire on my private island, so I can't do that"?
Reduction in innovation is a direct result of reduction in competition.
Prove it, then - where's the reduced innovation? Are there fewer patent applications being filed now? Fewer white papers being published? Fewer Nobel prizes being awarded? Operating Systems with additional years between releases?
Wrong. The German injunction was over a design patent. Not an innovation and that was overturned.
Wrong.
Design patents are also innovations that have to be novel and nonobvious. They're merely non-functional innovations, but aesthetic ones. If you don't understand what design patents are, then maybe you shouldn't be throwing around pronunciations of who's "wrong".
Furthermore, the German injunction wasn't overturned. It is still in place, on the original Galaxy Tab 10... It doesn't apply to the 10N or the 7, but then, it was never intended to.
The Australian injunction was voluntary. Samsung agreed to it and the first Judge, Justice Anabelle Bennett's major complaint was against Samsung's Lawyers, not a judgement on the technology itself. This judgement was overturned by a full bench of the Federal court AND a full bench of the High court. This is a very clear indication that the injunction was wrong.
Then (a) why did Samsung agree to it and (b) how is that evidence that the injunction stifled their sales? Rather, Samsung voluntarily stifled their sales.
Furthermore, the high court overturned the preliminary injunction. Their ruling was expressly limited only to the preliminary injunction, and did not say that (i) Samsung did not infringe and was not liable for damages or (ii) that a permanent injunction later on wouldn't be reasonable. All they did was say that an injunction was premature at that stage in the trial. But that doesn't mean Samsung wins - the court expressly ordered them to keep records on all sales, advertising, etc., because if they lose the trial, they're liable for every single penny.
So when you learn the truth, they actually are good examples.
Actually, all we've learned is that you don't really know what you're talking about.