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.'"

Comments

Re:Catastrophe theory

[easyTree]

They could always get some other phone.

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.

Re:Catastrophe theory

[blackest_k]

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.

Re:Judge is walking a thin line over a slippery sl

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:Catastrophe theory

[lorenlal]

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.

Re:Finally

[Merk42]

Catastrophic effects are good. That will lead to changes in the patent systems which will benefit everyone...

You're assuming that second part would happen...