Slashdot Mirror
Judge Suggests Apple, Motorola Should Play Nice
sl4shd0rk writes "Federal Judge Richard Posner seems to be a man who gets the screwed up patent system in the U.S. As Apple pressed for more injunctions against Motorola regarding alleged patent infringement, Judge Posner has stressed the two companies should just 'get along' and pay each other royalties. A jury trial set to start last week was cancelled when Posner ruled that neither side could prove damages, and grilled Apple's legal team saying an injunction against Motorola would be 'contrary to the public interest.' Furthermore, as Apple tried to plead its injunction case concerning four patents, Posner called the U.S. patent system 'chaos' and said an order barring the sale of Motorola phones could have 'catastrophic effects.'"
A judge that gets it. A refreshing change for once.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
First they came for Motorola,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Motorola fan-boy.
Then they came for Nokia,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Nokia fan-boy.
Then they came for HTC,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an HTC fan-boy.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Requiem for the American Dream
So, you are a Samsung fan-boy then?
Yah :D
Requiem for the American Dream
Cutting a large amount of the Motorola market off from Motorola products could be catastrophic for the company. Which would be catastrophic for the jobs of a lot of the people working there. Which would be bad for the economy. So yes.
I agree with the judge. Apple should get a reasonable, and non-predatory royalty for any alledgedly used patents, not an injunction barring anybody else from making phones that aren't tincans on wires.
But that would be contrary to the memory of dr evi..I mean, Steve Jobs, who famously said he would [expletive] destroy android.
Apple doesn't want a royalty. They want dominance. I hope the judge hands them their balls on a plate instead.
Wow, judge who actually gives a **** about theoretical intent of the law? Must be something wrong happened. We branched off from main timeline, yes?
Seriously, so much common sense that it is overhelming.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
There is a massive supply chain and investment that goes into the production of these shiny toys. That is the catastrophe when all of a sudden you can't bring your product to market. That investment can become a massive loss.
Any company that uses lawyers to ban competing products is going to get a bad reputation and damage their own sales.
Is an iPad such a bad product that it can not compete with a Samsung tablet? If I want a Samsung tablet and I can't buy it because of Apple, I really don't think I will buy an iPad instead. I probably will buy a different tablet from a different manufacturer.
I may well refuse to buy Apple products in general due to their interference manipulating what I can buy.
Change the company names and the products to suit your own preferences, it doesn't really matter who's manipulating markets through court rooms. They deserve to lose sales due to their tactics.
Products should compete on their merits not on legal technicalities where 2 engineering teams solved similar problems, independently of each other.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I may well refuse to buy Apple products in general due to their interference manipulating what I can buy.
That's stupid. Your beef is with the USPTO, not Apple.
So he should refuse to buy USPTO products ?
Cutting a large amount of the Motorola market off from Motorola products could be catastrophic for the company.
Same is going to apply in most of these situations. It's a reason for the legislature to get rid of this nonsense about banning products, nothing special about this case.
Which would be catastrophic for the jobs of a lot of the people working there. Which would be bad for the economy.
So too big to fail? Sounds like these big manufacturing companies need to be broken up.
The company that's being blocked loses out on sales whether there's really a case to answer or not, and they have no realistic chance of recouping that.
Injunctions should only be used where there's a possibility of immediate and irreparable damages to the person requesting it. I find it hard to imagine a valid reason, to be honest. Perhaps if some third party product breaks a device it's claimed to be compatible with?
If Apple eventually prevail in their case, then the more Motorola sold in the meantime the more they'll have to pay. If Apple's case fails then Motorola haven't been harmed.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
he should have banned all Apple and Motorola sales, while the case was pending, since Apple's case seems (like so many nowadays) frivolous. Or at least threatened to, and then asked if they really want him to settle it.
Kind of like ordering two mothers arguing over who's baby an infant is ordering the baby split in half, and divided equally between the parents, then awarding the child to whomever surrenders fastest.
That'd be fun to watch.
No, its properly with Apple.
A patent is a limited right, granted to get the information published for the public to read and implement later.
It is intended to help prevent industrial secrets, and improve the state of the art. That is the purpose for a patent.
Apple's violent brandishing of the powers afforded to it via the patent process to stifle innovation, and to suppress the advancement of the state of the art is directly counter-intuitive to the reason they were granted the patent in the first place.
Apple could have chosen to license the patent for a steep fee, or to charge a royalty for the use of their patent, but instead seek to use it as a barrier to entry for other and competing products.
This is not the fault of the USPTO. It is squarely the fault of Apple Inc.
It's BOTH at fault.
First, on the USPTO, for granting the patents.
Second on Apple for maliciously taking advantage of a bad situation.
Replace patent abuse with burglary, the USPTO with a stupid homeowner that didn't lock the door, and Apple with the burglar, and you have the same thing.
an injunction against Motorola would be 'contrary to the public interest.'
Contrary to the what now?
Is that like corporate interest, but only for publically traded corporations?
Perhaps it's some archaic concept from a long lost civilization?
I don't think "public interest" really exists in our modern times.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
...e subito dopo la legge.
To all conspiracy theorists, that was a quote from a song of some Italian dude on a judicial system. The full translated verse is "Listen, once a a judge like me judged the one who had dictated the Law. First they changed the judge and immediately after they changed the law."
Very 70s, very dark and in some instances very true. I for one remain curious to see if the savant will be sacrificed.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
So too big to fail? Sounds like these big manufacturing companies need to be broken up.
There is a big difference between a) a company declining over time, and b) what would happen if the government prevented a large consumer electronics company from selling its wares, thus forcing it into rapid failure, probably to the point of bankruptcy within days as the stock crashes.
Having said that, politically speaking these companies probably are "too big to fail"; can you imagine politicians standing idly by if some foreign competitor ever got a complete sales ban on iPhones? I bet patent law would be reformed within weeks to "protect American jobs".
There is a big difference between a) a company declining over time, and b) what would happen if the government prevented a large consumer electronics company from selling its wares, thus forcing it into rapid failure, probably to the point of bankruptcy within days as the stock crashes.
The patent system already, and inherently, favors established big companies over new entrants to a market. This is not a good thing. Enforcing that further is even worse. I'm all for the legislature stopping this nonsense about being able to ban products before the court case determines any wrong doing/infringement/liability, but saying "ah, [small or big company] is suing [small company], that's okay, small company all your products are banned, go directly to hell" compared to "oh no [small or big company] is suing [big company] we must protect big company's sales!" is not conscienable.
Having said that, politically speaking these companies probably are "too big to fail"; can you imagine politicians standing idly by if some foreign competitor ever got a complete sales ban on iPhones?
Then that's a problem that needs to be fixed. If banning a product line of one company would be such a disaster (and frankly, I don't buy it, people will get by fine with a different shiny toy) then compulsory licensing of that product line to other suppliers is the answer, so we have multiple points of supply and no disaster.
Please get to the core of the problem, that's your legislature and it's voters.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Cases are dismissed on grounds of public interest all the time. Every judge is entitled to refuse to take a case or to later drop it he or she considers it contrary to the public interest to follow through. And of course every party involved can later file a complaint because of an unfair dismissal.
I'm there with you, Samsung is the new Nokia.
If the system is screwed up, he should judge that those elements in the case that are the result of the scewed up system alone. NOT "do a Solomon" and pick a third option that is just as screwed up.
So wait, why is this Apple's fault?
Surely Apple have the choice when it comes to a patent that has been granted to them. If they *want* to licence it for a steep fee, they can. If they *want* to block anyone else from using it, they can.
I don't disagree with your sentiment (I think the whole patent system is getting out of hand), but the way it it currently set up, Apple is perfectly within its rights to sue other companies who infringe on patents it holds (even frivolous ones) - that's how the system works.
The patent system was set up to foster exactly the sort of thing that Apple (and many of its competitors) are doing. It's just getting into a ridiculous position because more and more things are being patented that really shouldn't be.
First and foremost, Apple is a business - it is going to do what it can to ensure that it succeeds at that goal. I may think it's a stupid move, but they are well within their rights to make it.
Remind me, who exactly is it that implements these most hallowed "checks" and "balances" to laws that take a huge steaming dump all over the Constitution?
Superman, right? That's who does it? Or Jesus. Or Super-Jesus-man?
A judge who interprets Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 literally, including the preamble which clearly explains its actual purpose and goal, is OK in my book.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Its only the MBAs that equate stock price with a company's value.
If all the shares of Company X are worth $0 then the company proper is worth $0? No. Just that the gamblers cannot as easily play their shell game of swapping worthless pieces of paper (stock) for other, worthless pieces of paper (money).
Oh hell, if we can just tell everyone to "get along" instead of actually having trials, I'm becoming a fucking judge!
Regardless of how stupid a patent case is, it's the current law and deserves a trial. Period.
You wanna change the patent system? then fucking help change it. Don't ignore your responsibilities.
Oh my gawd dude. Seriously?? Motorola and Samsung are brandishing FRAND patents against their competition which goes directly against the framework of FRAND patents and you're vilifying APPLE???
Holy crap dude. Insanely biased much?
Apple has the right to license their non-FRAND patents or to not license them, as they chose. That is how the patent system works. FRAND patents, such as those being wielded by Motorola and Samsung, however, MUST be licensed to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license them for FAIR and REASONABLE NON-DISCRIMINATORY rates. And, currently, they aren't.
And you're vilifying Apple.
Jesus dude. At least make some thinly veiled attempt to disguise your bias next time or you'll start to sound like a shill.
They get paid billable hours for litigating. They get paid less for "getting along" with opposing legal teams. Going to war is more profitable for the legal teams of both sides. At least an army general may be reluctant to go to war, because he cares about the loss of life and morale of his soldiers. Lawyers don't suffer when they lose a case. They get paid more billable hours for an appeal.
"Contrary to the public interest" is not even a concern here. How do we change this? Well, maybe we need Congress to reform some laws . . . ?
. . . Oh, but what are their occupations, outside of Congress . . . they are all lawyers . . . ?
. . . Ok, I think I understand how the system works now . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
And if we don't like their attitude as displayed by the choice they took, we can blame apple.
What else can you blame someone for, if not the choice they made?
Tell me where the patent laws say that apple HAD to do what they did?
Nowhere.
First and foremost, Apple want our money. Acting like this, I decide to forbid them access to it and blame them for the choices they took.
Surely Apple have the choice when it comes to a patent that has been granted to them. If they *want* to licence it for a steep fee, they can. If they *want* to block anyone else from using it, they can.
Not according to the US Constitution which says patents exist "To promote the progress of science and useful arts".
Unless Apple shows how their blocking others from using their patents will promote the progress of science and useful arts, what they are doing is unconstitutional.
"Exclusive use of the granted patent allows us to recoup the cost of the research spent on making this product, allowing us to work on future products".
You won't agree with that (and I don't really), but a court will (and has).
FFS Motorola are trying to charge way above the norm for FRAND patents. If everyone with a FRAND patent charged the percentage Motorola is after there would be no way for anyone to make anything.
Its much easier to just bash Apple though. Way to let your agenda and prejudice show.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
So you're saying that the blame resides with the company or individual that is exercising it's limited rights, rather than the government office that granted the arguably invalid patent in the first place?
You aren't making a very good argument here.
Posting anonymously because common sense gets modded into oblivion these days.
Why does God need a starship?
So, here's the scoop.
As long as the corps threaten someone who doesn't make lots of $$, then it appears to be in the public interest to let the suit continue, so the dominant players can keep the status quo.
As soon as any player actualy threatens the livlihood of a major player, regardless of the worth of the suit, it cannot be good for "public interests" and must be quashed.
Sound about rignt?
Yes and no. Judges ought to apply the law and constitution as they were intended to be applied. Whether this is 100% consistent with their wording is not as much of a concern for me.
It seems like the US legal system has become one big game, where people do stuff that clearly harms the public, with the only justification being "but I'm obligated to be selfish and the letter of the law lets me get away with it..."
The solution is to simply apply common sense. If somebody deducts $300M from their taxes because they bought a sewer system in France and leased it back to the municipality, then simply rule that they owe the taxes anyway plus penalties so that the company is out the penalties and whatever loss they incurred on sewer deal. If you quit letting people abuse loopholes they'll stop doing it. When they complain that the letter of the law allows it, the answer is "so what."
When my computer crashes because it blindly follows an algorithm that is imperfect, I'll accept that this is one of the limitations of computers that we accept because they're so much cheaper. When human beings behave in the same way, then I have to wonder why we bother to pay them...
Replace patent abuse with burglary, the USPTO with a stupid homeowner that didn't lock the door, and Apple with the burglar, and you have the same thing.
Most rational places don't see leaving your door unlocked as an invitation to be burgled, nor infer any culpability whatsoever to the homeowner (nor diminish the burglar's in any way) if they are burgled because of it.
At some point we're going to need to stop explaining away this behavior that's clearly at odds with the spirit of the law, if not the letter. I seriously doubt that Apple's use of patent law as a club to beat every competitor to death is in any way in following the spirit of patent law at all.
And that's absolutely fine. The license terms Apple want are for people who contribute to the patent pool. Apple don't want to contribute to that patent pool like the others, but still wants the same deal apart from that payment.
The FRAND payment is cash plus put your patents in the pot.
And everyone else is paying it.
Apple don't want to. Why should they get a cheaper rate than anyone else?
While public interest is greatly appealing to the masses. The summary says they cannot clearly prove losses... and checking the record profit apple has being setting... it may be right a good reason to hardly believing them all the losses they are running into due to Motorola.
A judge who dismisses a case on grounds of 'public interest' and not rule of law is overstepping his authority.
I don't see any violation of rule of law here. The patent statute, 35 USC, must be interpreted consistently with the purposes expressed in the Constitution, which states: "The Congress shall have power [...] To regulate commerce [and] To promote the progress of science and useful arts". When companies seek injunctions against nearly the entire handheld computer market (that is, devices running iOS or Android), this promotes neither "commerce" nor "progress".
the checks and balances established for it by our Constitution
...include a judiciary to interpret statutes in light of the Constitution.
The irony that you didn't apply common sense before you came up with that "solution" is precious!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
How can you seriously conclude that the judge is ``overstepping his authority'' if you `` havn't read the case materials''?
That's idiocy of the highest order.
the premise behind patents is that it promotes the progress of science and useful arts by encouraging businesses to reveal trade secrets. We don't want inventors taking their ideas to the grave; we want them rushing out to tell the world. There's vultures waiting to steal all their ideas, though, so we give them legal right to decide who's allowed to play that way for a little while in exchange for telling us how they do it. Then in 14 years we can build on their ideas, or at least use them everywhere, advancing technology in general.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
This story really needs to mention that posner is actually an appellate judge sitting on the trial bench because we have too many open seats on the federal bench. Appellate judges are being forced to do double duty. Posner, as an appellate judge, is accustomed to commenting on and changing our interpretation of law. Dangerous man to pull for a trial judge.
Just because you love Apple so much, any criticism "must" (in your insane logic) be for no reason at all.
Apple CHOSE their actions. People CHOOSE to blame Apple FOR their actions.
How else does this work?
I notice you didn't manage to answer that.
PS FRAND licenses require a payment of "put your patent in the pool and pay this amount of cash". Apple don't want to put their patents in the pool and therefore you're arguing that Apple should get the same patents cheaper than anyone else. How is that "fair"?
OMG, dude. Maybe you don't have the whole story. I mean Jesus Christ on a cracker or some other insane crap you might say judging from the hissy fit you threw. Also maybe apple isn't in the patent pool so they don't get the same frand deal the rest do. Look up how this works.
Why not both. If you see perceive something as injustice it seems silly to keep your mouth closed until you can find just the right person to blame. If apple is abusing the patent system then they should be held accountable in the public opinion.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Nope. Not biased at all. The suit that Motorola fired against Apple was a direct reply to the suit the Apple opened against Motorola for violating Apple's patents.
See, Apple is vilified in this case because they aren't asking for compensation, they're trying to leverage their patents to *prevent anyone from licensing them or bringing a competitive product to market.* Motorola does license their FRAND patent fairly, with one exception being made for customers who are currently suing them.
Apple's actions are completely against any spirit of patents. They're not just a dick maneuvers, they harm markets, prevent innovation, and hurt us (the consumers). Considering that Apple has a bit of history of manipulating images to "prove" likeness with Samsung, the population here is going to side with whomever Apple is suing.
And given your posting history, I'd be very cautious when calling someone a shill.
Motorola isn't exactly playing nice with their FRAND licensing on this, which probably hurts their case a bit as a result. I agree with you they are both abusing the system. Sadly this has become the norm for Apple to act like this and only us geeks seem to care about how it affects the larger tech landscape.
Its only the MBAs that equate stock price with a company's value.
In the era of super PACs, MBAs also control who gets elected to U.S. office.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Lawyers don't suffer when they lose a case.
Are you sure the hourly rate that the lawyer can charge doesn't suffer?
They get paid more billable hours for an appeal.
Lawyers who win get paid billable hours for an appeal too.
Seeing as Motorola sued Apple, it seems highly suspect to me that the Judge is making decisions while saying things like ( paraphrased ) "Banning Motorola devices would be devastating" . Well, no kidding.... when you swim in the ocean you might drown.
To be fair, he also called out Motorola on their ridiculous behavior on the FRAND arguments.
I don't think there's anything wrong with these lawsuits. If anything it's Motorola who is abusing the system by refusing to license FRAND patents for reasonable terms. Shame on Google for not forcing them to settle when they were bought out.
No, Apple is protecting its products and patents. They created something, patented it, thus they have the right to profit from that product or design and not allow anyone else to just copy it.
Why does everyone here think that a patent is just a publication of some design or product that can then just be copied by everyone else. Patents are to protect the inventor from having the idea stolen and profits made by another person or company of their original ideas.
Moto has copied elements of Apples products and thus are being sued for those copied products. Moto on the other hand has decided that their FRAND patents need to be paid for twice, once by the chip maker that Apple uses, and again by Apple because they use those chips. They are double dipping with their FRAND patents and thus why Apple never licensed Moto's FRAND patents. Moto is trying to license Apple's patents but Apple is saying no and they have the write to say no, but at the same time they are trying to hold out the FRAND patents at non reasonable prices, which also include licensing Apple's patents.
So Moto knows they infringed on Apple's patents, but they are trying to use their FRAND patents to make Apple relent, which isn't right. Apple has the legal high ground no matter how to feel about each company or their products.
"FRAND patents require that you licence your patent reasonably, fairly and in a non-descriminatory fashion"
Yes, that's what FRAND means.
If payment for ANYONE wanting a patent has "pay some money and put your patents in the pool", then the reasonably, fair and non-discriminatory fashion request for payment is to require from Apple "pay some money and put your patents in the pool".
Apple don't want to pay that price, though.
"It *does not* require that you put patents into the pool."
It does if the license costs for anyone else requires that you put patents in the pool.
You see to believe that there is a Standard Set License under FRAND. You are wrong, though. FRAND does not determine the clauses of the license, only that the license terms are applied without discrimination.
"My point is not that Apple are not blameless, or that people aren't free to assign blame"
WRONG.
"by jo_ham (604554) writes: on Friday June 22, @07:00AM (#40409535)
So wait, why is this Apple's fault?"
In response to someone saying:
"by shentino (1139071) writes: on Friday June 22, @05:13AM (#40409113) ...
Second on Apple for maliciously taking advantage of a bad situation."
So you're proclaiming that someone is not allowed to blame Apple.
But I predict you will either ignore this or fluff away saying lots of words that don't acknowledge this fact, since it disproves your pretend "moderate voice" bollocks.
I want them to battle it out, but not in court.
I want them both to go and try to make the very best phone they possibly can and fight for each and every consumer's pocket.
Oh, but that would require more money and effort than just throwing lawyers around, wouldn't it?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
It's not even analogous.
And, as predicted, you ignored the evidence that your claim of "even-handedness" was bunkum.
Worse, in the case you have, a wet floor in a shop needs to have a warning. Health and Safety. Therefore, legally, it IS the store's fault.
It's likely their response to Apples asshattery wrt to shite software and design patents versus patents that took real and actual expensive research and true innovation.
As far as I am concerned even frand should be useable for import bands, etc ifa company continuously declines to license them, and btw if $5 is too much then what is $15 to M$ for their hacks, sorry patents?
DISCLAIMER: I do not know if the poster you are calling out is factually correct in this situation(Apple wants the same FRAND license deal as those with patents in the pool).
If he is factually correct though you need to stop calling him wrong. This is how FRAND patents work. FRAND doesn't guarantee the same exact deal for everyone licensing a patent but does dictate that each deal must be fair and comparable to other licensing deals. Circumstances, however, can be taken into account.
Simply:
I have a major patent in the pool for some standard, your company has a major patent for that standard, too. We decide to just draw up a contract allowing us to use each others' patents with no money changing hands.
Another company wants to use both our patents. They have no patents in the pool. Do we have to license our patents to this third company for free since we didn't charge each other money in our licensing deal?
No. That would be stupid. We come to a separate deal with that third company, probably for money. As long as our terms are fair we don't have to compare it to the deal between our two companies. That is a separate case.
If a fourth company comes along in the same boat as 3(wants to use our patents, has no patents of their own in the same pool) then we must give them a deal comparable to what we gave the third company. We can't charge them 2,000 times as much because we don't like the CEO. That is the nondiscriminatory part. Not "everyone gets the exact same licensing terms".
A patent is a limited right
According to the U.S. Constitution, it's an "exclusive Right". The only limit to that right is the life of the patent.
It is intended to help prevent industrial secrets
Trade secrets and patents serve entirely different purposes and are generally applied to different things. For instance, the most famous example of a trade secret might be the Coca-Cola formula, but Coca-Cola couldn't patent it even if they wanted to, nor would patenting it be in their best interest since it would effectively place a lifespan on how long they could continue to sell their primary product. Formulas, recipes, mixtures, and other things of that sort are ideal for treating as trade secrets, and trade secrets are protected by various laws in different states. Stuff that your competitors can take apart and put on a production line of their own within 6 months is stuff that is better off being patented, that way they are unable to do so.
and improve the state of the art
Correct. More specifically, it's "[t]o promote the Progress of Science".
Apple's violent brandishing of the powers afforded to it via the patent process to stifle innovation, and to suppress the advancement of the state of the art is directly counter-intuitive to the reason they were granted the patent in the first place.
That's not entirely correct, and is slightly hypocritical since you admit they have rights. Patents are granted to promote the progress of science "by securing for limited Times to...Inventors the exclusive Right to their...Discoveries" (the "..." stuff is all related to copyright). So, if the way that science is progressed is by securing that exclusive right, they need to be able to enforce that exclusivity. And while you are correct that any one specific enforcement may "suppress the advancement of the state of the art", you're failing to consider the bigger picture. If patents couldn't be enforced, the incentive for innovation would wither and disappear, leaving the state of the art in an even worse place.
So, you need enforceable patents, or else the entire purpose of the system falls apart under its inability to protect itself. As broken or misused as I think the system is, I'd still take it in its current condition over the idea of throwing it out altogether.
Apple could have chosen to license the patent for a steep fee, or to charge a royalty for the use of their patent, but instead seek to use it as a barrier to entry for other and competing products.
They have an exclusive right to the patent. If they want to maintain their competitive advantage instead of license it, that's their right. There's nothing wrong with them doing so. It's their prerogative as the patent holder, and they have no responsibility to do otherwise.
All of this said, I don't support many of the patents that have been awarded to Apple or the other companies being discussed, nor do I support the use of those patents in litigation. If someone truly innovates and then wants to protect their innovation, I'm fine with that. If someone gets a ridiculous patent and then uses it as a club, I loathe that.
Sure I did. If a kid behaved the way lawyers behave in court, their parents would simply smack them. Common sense prevails.
This cannot stand!
an injunction against Motorola would be 'contrary to the public interest.'
If and when this case reaches the Supreme Court, I'll be wagering the Supremes toss out the part about it being "contrary to the public interest." The deck is stacked against any person or judge who uses such a quaint anachronism in their legal reasoning.
Post the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts, the law is becoming more and more about protecting the private interests of large corporations. On that standard, the grounds for injunctive relief have nothing to do with consumer convenience or the public interest.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the long haul, if Posner doesn't force a settlement acceptable to Apple.
The judge hasn't dismissed any case. He denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that an injunction would not serve the public interest. In order to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the party making the motion (in this case Apple) must prove (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Since the judge found that an injunction would not be in the public interest, and that Motorola was likely to suffer irreparable harm, the motion was denied.
The legal system in the US is set up with all sorts of controls over runaway judges going right up to Supreme Court justices who can be impeached and removed from office by congress. In some states judges are elected. In other states judges are appointed. I am not aware of any state that does not have some mechanism to remove judges that turn out to be whack-jobs. So the system has checks and balances on the individuals serving as judges.
Moreover, while it is true that any given judge has unlimited power to decide a case any which way, in practice that power is very limited because any given ruling can be overruled by the next level of the court system. Even the Supreme Court can be overruled by future courts, by legislation (e.g. the Lilly Ledbetter Act), or by amending the US Constitution. So there are checks and balances on the rulings themselves aside.
Posner himself has treated this topic at length. A hypothetical `judge gone mad' is a frequently recurring theme in the field of legal philosophy. I highly recommend his Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy.
So wait, why is this Apple's fault?
Because we aren't fanbois blinded by our bias, and can see that Apple is being dickish here.
You've never had a *single* bad thing to say about Apple. That probably means you're not capable of being objective. Therefore, we can ignore pretty much everything you have to say on the subject. If you can't examine your own sacred cows critically, please STFU and let the grown-ups do the talking.
I don't blame the person selling the gun. I blame the person pulling the trigger.
A judge who dismisses a case on grounds of 'public interest' and not rule of law is overstepping his authority.
No, he's following the intent of the patent and copyright clause of the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 states:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Promote the progress of science and the arts for whom and for what benefit? The public. This judge is one of the few who actually seems to understand that the primary purpose of patent and copyright is to bring the knowledge into the public domain by giving exclusive rights "for limited times" to the inventor, discoverer, or author. So, while the exclusive right is granted to a private person(s) or corporation, it is granted in exchange for contributing it to the public interest. If the rights holder is not fulfilling their public interest side of the bargain, it it within the rights of the courts to force them to do so, or revoke their exclusive rights.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
*Whoosh*?
He did say that you can replace the companies mentioned with other companies easily. Here, I'll sway it another way:
There is a massive supply chain and investment that goes into the production of these shiny toys. That is the catastrophe when all of a sudden you can't bring your product to market. That investment can become a massive loss.
Any company that uses lawyers to ban competing products is going to get a bad reputation and damage their own sales.
Is an Android phone such a bad product that it can not compete with an iPhone? If I want an iPhone and I can't buy it because of Google, I really don't think I will buy an Android phone instead. I probably will buy a different phone from a different manufacturer.
I may well refuse to buy Google products in general due to their interference manipulating what I can buy.
Change the company names and the products to suit your own preferences, it doesn't really matter who's manipulating markets through court rooms. They deserve to lose sales due to their tactics.
Products should compete on their merits not on legal technicalities where 2 engineering teams solved similar problems, independently of each other.
The only issue is that suddenly it doesn't make any sense by switching Apple to Google and Samsung to Apple. But hopefully that gets the point across of the bolded line...
Whether apples patent portfolio is dubious or not has got nothing to do with the issue of the morality of how to wield a patent - but then reactionary apple haters such as yourself are incapable of seeing the difference.
Well you've admitted yourself that Motorola are abusing their FRAND patent. Whether a company is a dick or not doesn't matter, it shouldn't be motorolas decision to make. I'm not making the judgement either way that apple have harmed the market in this post, but I am making the point that Motorola are harming the market with their actions. That fact shouldn't be lost.
I'd be tempted to create a Judge Hall of Fame for judges that just plain "get it." For ones who have an understanding of the philosophy and content of the fields upon which they are judging. And produce decisions based upon sound reason.
Judge Posner.
Judge John Jones (Dover: Intelligent Design, everyone should read this at least once a year.
Comments requested: who else should be on this list?
Your "common sense" conflicts with GAAP accounting standards and makes no sense at all. The $300M is an expense that they incurred, a sewer system did not materialize from thin air. They will be paying taxes on all the income they receive on a yearly basis from the municipality.
Apple has the right to license their non-FRAND patents or to not license them, as they chose. That is how the patent system works. FRAND patents, such as those being wielded by Motorola and Samsung, however, MUST be licensed to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license them for FAIR and REASONABLE NON-DISCRIMINATORY rates. And, currently, they aren't.
I guess some people have an issue with Apple using non-FRAND patents to hammer Motorola and then claim that Mot must license their FRAND patents to Apple at a 'reasonable' rate. It seems to me that it's fair and reasonable to charge a high rate for my FRAND patents to someone who's charging me a high rate for their non-FRAND patents. Just because I might have patents in FRAND shouldn't tie my hands when dealing with someone who wants their cake (high fees on non-FRAND patents) and eat it too (low rates on FRAND patents they need). In other words, how is it discriminatory for me to charge a high rate to someone who charges me a high rate too?
It wouldn't be OK for me to charge a high rate to Apple for FRAND patents if I was also licensing FRAND patents from them, and I was charging that high rate because Apple was also charging me for non-FRAND patents as well.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
So wait, why is this Apple's fault?
Because we aren't fanbois blinded by our bias, and can see that Apple is being dickish here.
You've never had a *single* bad thing to say about Apple. That probably means you're not capable of being objective. Therefore, we can ignore pretty much everything you have to say on the subject. If you can't examine your own sacred cows critically, please STFU and let the grown-ups do the talking.
You've clearly never read any of my posts then.
The Finder is terrible and needs serious work, Apple's lawsuits over slide-to-unlock and the Galaxy Tab are a major mistake, the use of pentalobe screws in the iPhone 4 and now in the new Macbook Retina is needless, the iOS UI needs a way to easily toggle common features like bluetooth and wifi like you can on Android, the Mac Pro "update" just done last month was one of the most laughably asinine things I have ever seen from any company (and the price of the MP is also much too high), the price for BTO options for many things is too damn high (RAM and SSD especially), Apple promised to open the FaceTime protocol "soon" ages ago and hasn't done so yet, iOS really needs something like Swype - which is one of the best input methods I've seen on a smartphone.
Sorry, anything else? This is just the stuff I remember talking about in the past year or so on here. I'm sorry if you simply choose to only see the positive things I have to say, given that there tend to be more of them. Each to his own I guess.
The point is that this could never actually work in practice, making "use common sense" the less-than-common-sense solution.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You'd have a point if Apple were only taking this action against Motorola, but they are taking the same offensive action against anyone and anything they see as competition.
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Because they didn't have phones
The point is that it was a transaction that was made for no business purpose at all, but purely as a means to pay less in taxes (I doubt they made it to pay more in taxes). I see no reason that the US taxpayers should tolerate it.
It has worked in practice in many times and places. I doubt it would work in the current US climate, since people vote for whoever the shiny ads tell them to, and those ads are paid for by the beneficiaries of the current policies.
Once the US manages to bankrupt its treasury, loses the ability to pay police, and society collapses, you might see a different form of law enforcement where these kinds of approaches would be VERY common. If you fail to pay the local warlord the proper tribute I wouldn't count on a lawyer to be of much help...
I completely agree. That particular patent is supposed to be available to make it a standard, so selecting a target to selectively enforce isn't my idea of good business. My post is in reply to the parent only. I don't like the idea of firing up FRAND patents in any sort of litigation, but I am willing to grant some slack for defensive maneuvers.
I don't imply that a patent is there for anyone to copy. What I'm trying to point out is that patents exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and it's clear that Apple isn't working in that spirit, and that's why they're being vilified. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's just why I think they're being vilified.
As for their "right" to license or not license their patents, they clearly don't want to license anything that would allow anyone else to contribute or compete in the market. I'd immediately look at the validity of their patents, since I have yet to see one that doesn't have some sort of prior art. Regardless of validity, Motorola (either intentionally or not) did produce a product that exposed them to liability. Given the quality of the patents, it's possible that they didn't know they were infringing. Assume they did know. Now they get a chance to challenge them, and maybe they're getting exactly what they asked for. Awesome for them then.
Either way, Apple is coming across pretty poorly in my eyes because they're really just trying to prevent new market entrants. That's the point I'm trying to make. They have every right to do so, and I don't have any reason to tell them to stop myself. They're still acting dick-headed in my humble opinion, but fortunately for them, that doesn't hurt their bottom line.
What does it TASTE LIKE, in you having to "eat your words" flavored w/ your foot in your mouth + spiced with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931443&cid=40430025
* Hmmm?? I don't care what evasive BULLSHIT you state here either - face me directly over there, that is, IF YOU HAVE *ANY* BALLS!
You surely trolled me there, and in other places (I proved that much there), so, let's see how "brave" you are, & see you disprove my points on custom hosts files and what they do benefitting end users of them... ok, troll?
Of course, you'll evade that too, as per your TROLLING weak usual!
(Now, I am going to do to YOU, what you *TRIED* to do to me, and you failed in it, numerous times, not just there... no, I am putting the shoe on the other foot, yours, and you put that foot into your mouth, lol!)
APK
P.S.=> You've trolled me in the past, & RUN from disproving points I made on custom hosts files, which I proved in that exchange also (as well as the fact you can't back up your b.s. technically either in computing), so "turnabout is fair play" & I am loving humiliating you for it!
Perhaps it will teach you a lesson to RESPECT YOUR ELDERS & BETTERS & do the next person dealing with you trolling them a favor, getting you to consider that not everyone "blows off trolls & ignores them"...
(Not I - I, rather, systematically DESTROY wise-ass worms like you, with your OWN FAULTS/MISTAKES, & especially since you seem to "get off" on trolling others... how's it FEEL when the shoe's on the other foot, AND IN YOUR MOUTH, and you've been made to look a fool for it?)...
... apk
If a gun dealer sells a firearm to a felon that shoots someone they are on the hook too.