Slashdot Mirror


US Judge Rules Against German Microsoft Injunction

angry tapir writes "In an unusual case, a U.S. judge has ruled that Motorola cannot enforce an injunction that would prevent Microsoft from selling Windows products in Germany, should a German court issue such an injunction next week. Microsoft asked the judge for the ruling in anticipation of an injunction that a German court is expected to issue related to a patent infringement suit that Motorola filed against Microsoft in Germany. The suit centers primarily on Motorola licenses that have been declared essential to the H.264 video standard. The German injunction is expected on April 17."

19 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Eh? by g0tai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL, so can someone explain to me why a US court thinks it has any effect in Germany? Or is this some kind of 'threat'/'international business' thing that has some legal basis for multinational companies?

    1. Re:Eh? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US thinks their jurisdiction is the whole world -- they think copyright, software patents, making laws after something happened rather than before (Common law), screaming out on a marketplace of ideas to determine the best ... is a universal thing and awesome.
      But hey, if you're big, you don't need to care to listen.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:Eh? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After reading the article, it seems the US court is ordering Motorola not to use the German legal system to block sales of Windows in Germany. So if Motorola were to do it anyway, I guess German customs would still enforce the injunction, but Motorola mangement in the US would risk punishment.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    3. Re:Eh? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I tend to think that if Motorola does something in Germany, they will pay the consequences here in the US. Of course the US judge doesn't expect his ruling to have any effect on what happens in Germany. This is the US seeking to control what plaintiffs do in other countries.

      Is this an example of the US over-reaching? Oh yeah. But this is about trying to get Motorola, a company with presence in the US, to behave in a fashion which suits the interests of the businesses in the US... or at least the ones who have been contributing the most to government election campaigns.

      Things are getting more heated and more dirty. Also, very, very interesting.

    4. Re:Eh? by DarkDust · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Germany, if the court grants you an injunction it is not automatically enforced immediately. The winning party needs to explicitly enforce it.

      Now a US court decided that the company Motorola may not enforce this injunction should it win it, since there are ongoing actions that have not been decided (like, whether the patent in question is actually invalid). So if Motorola were to enforce this injunction it would have an unfair disadvantage.

      So the US court has not interfered with German courts: it only ruled what the company Motorola may do should it win this battle in Germany.

    5. Re:Eh? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The judge has definitely overstepped the mark here, in my opinion.

      Motorola is seeking a limitation in another jurisdiction, under different rules, not the local jurisdiction under the local rules.

      By seeking to prevent Motorola from partaking in legal action in another jurisdiction, the judge has certainly limited Motorolas freedom to operate.

    6. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In Germany, if the court grants you an injunction it is not automatically enforced immediately. The winning party needs to explicitly enforce it.

      Now a US court decided that the company Motorola may not enforce this injunction should it win it, since there are ongoing actions that have not been decided (like, whether the patent in question is actually invalid). So if Motorola were to enforce this injunction it would have an unfair disadvantage.

      So the US court has not interfered with German courts: it only ruled what the company Motorola may do should it win this battle in Germany.

      So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ?
      God damn the US, if only we could blast that shit country into deep space.

    7. Re:Eh? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And that is definitely an issue for an appeals court or the supreme court to rule on. But how far does that go? After all, companies and individuals are routinely held to account for operating within the unspoken rules of business in China which is all about bribes and corruption being built right into the culture and expectations of all involved.

      So it's not a question of practice, but where the line should be drawn isn't it?

    8. Re:Eh? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The line should be drawn at illegal practices, in my opinion - however, this particular case has nothing to do with illegal practices.

      Motorola are doing something completely legal in both the US and Germany, they are just doing it in German jurisdiction. The US Judge is threatening Motorola in US jurisdiction for something that isn't illegal in either place.

      The US Judge is trying to trump the authority of the German judge in his own jurisdiction. Thats overstepping the mark.

    9. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >The judge has definitely overstepped the mark here, in my opinion.

      Germany uses the Euro these days.

    10. Re:Eh? by pugugly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My reading of this is that the German lawsuit was filed after the U.S. lawsuit, expressly because Motorola didn't particularly like the way the U.S. Lawsuit was going, aka Motorola was Forum Shopping after the fact and hoping to use that result to pressure Microsoft to give in the original case.

      Practically I don't see that the U.S. Court had any choice but to slap them down hard to discourage that as a tactic. Don't like how your case is going here? Sue in France!

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    11. Re:Eh? by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't like how your case is going here? Sue in France!

      Which is absolutely fine, as any rulings of the French trade courts will only apply in France, not the United States. Contrary to what Microsoft claim, they doesn't need to license any E.U. patents for territories outside of the E.U. - the jurisdiction of E.U. patents ends at the E.U. borders.

      Would you be happy if the E.U. courts began to make judgements against Microsoft etc., and expressly said that the jurisdiction of those judgements wasn't just within the E.U., but also covered the U.S.? It is a blatant attempt to extend the jurisdictional territory of national patents onto other nations, which is certainly not allowed under the existing patent treaties. What if Chinese courts decide that they have the jurisdiction to rule on U.S. patent cases?

    12. Re:Eh? by chrb · · Score: 4, Informative
      The USPTO disagree:

      How do I protect my patent internationally?
      Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.

  2. Re:Divide and Conquer by dougisfunny · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or they can get an injunction granted in Germany preventing the injunction granted in the USA from preventing the injunction granted in Germany.

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  3. Re:Better article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You do know that Florian Muller is on Microsoft's payroll. Are you as well?

  4. The article explains it by MDillenbeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IANAL, so can someone explain to me why a US court thinks it has any effect in Germany? Or is this some kind of 'threat'/'international business' thing that has some legal basis for multinational companies?

    From the source article:

    The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.

    So, basically, they are arguing they have jurisdiction because the dispute originated in the US - and it sounds like the US justice system feels that the Motorola suit was more retaliation against Microsoft for bringing up the case than a preplanned and poorly timed execution.

    Personally, however, I believe the US would never tolerate another country making the same claim. Instead, the US would claim sovereign rights and not bow to any court, national or international (yes, the US has refused to recognize the proceedings of the International Criminal Court - showing how much it believes in having other powers meddle in its governance). Thus the US should respect the sovereignty of other nations to manage their own legal proceedings since we have no jurisdiction over Germany.

  5. Re:It's a fact by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OH, and as for the Russians (or if you're going to be historically accurate, the "Soviets" -- i.e., the Soviet Union): yeah, their military bounced back and probably could have defeated the Nazis by themselves . .. .

    IF they had the food. After perestroika and glasnost, a number of former Soviet leaders came forward to publicly state that American supplies during WWII, especially food, made a huge difference. Remember, the Nazis had overrun and had occupied most of "Russia's" food basket. They were starving. That's why, as soon as the USA became involved, Stalin requested two things: (1), that the USA and UK open a second front against Germany ASAP to help take the pressure off of them, and (2), FOOD. Lots and lots of food. Tons of food.

    Which we supplied.

    This really is off-topic; we were discussing an American judge issuing an injunction in advance of a German court's decision -- but I was specifically addressing the historical inaccuracies in your post. Now I'm off to work.

    --
    Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  6. Re:It's a fact by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster

    And of course, the massive amounts of aid you yourself receive after disasters from other nations don't count ?
    Do you even know how much aid the USA received after Katrina ? Not just money but many other types of aid - for example the Dutch sent you a whole bunch of engineers with the kind of particular expertise in water and flood management that their dyke system requires and you didn't have to help fix things.

    Sorry, if the best thing you can say in your favor is something every other not-ruled-by-an-evil-dictator country on earth does then you're really nothing special.

    On the other hand, after the Japan quake facebook and twitter were filled with Americans complaining about your government sending aid to the Pearl Harbour guilty. Conveniently forgetting that:
    1) Japan has been a US ally for decades now
    2) A nuclear bomb is probably more than adequate justice for a harbor- you gave them two
    3) After Katrina Japan was the single largest monetary benefactor giving aid to YOU in YOUR hour of need.

    I don't hate Americans - hell I've been to America, I loved San Francisco. There's a lot of things wrong with your culture and your country but there's a lot of things wrong with all the others too.
    I don't think you deserve all the hate you get, but you certainly don't deserve the adoration you want either.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  7. Re:Misleading summary translated by rioki · · Score: 4, Informative

    The way this works in Germany is that the court gives you a paper that says can order an injunction and what terms apply (in most cases you must post a bond). You then can take that paper to the Gerichtsvollzieher (marshal / bailiff) which then executes the injunction. The interesting point is that these two steps are independent and you can chose not to execute the injunction.

    So the judge ordered Motorola not to execute the injunction. How that is interfering with German sovereignty is a different and debatable point.