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...
Star Trek V The Final Frontier: greatest science fiction film ever?
While I agree that the patent system is messed up and have no real sympathy with the idea of banning Motorla (or Apple) products, the idea that people not getting their shiny toys would be a catastrophe is a bit much. They could always get some other phone.
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!
A judge who dismisses a case on grounds of 'public interest' and not rule of law is overstepping his authority. As broken as our patent system is, much worse is a judiciary which disregards the checks and balances established for it by our Constitution. Perhaps Apple and Motorola are being childish, but they are acting in a manner they believe benefits their stockholders the most within the confines of the law, which is the extent of the court's authority.
Granted, I havn't read the case materials, and the judge may have a more legitimate legal basis to cancel the jury trial.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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...
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"?
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.
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.
"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.
YOU ARE WRONG!!
You keep posting this drivel in an attempt to misinform readers but THAT IS NOT HOW FRAND PATENTS WORK!!
And people keep modding you up which boggles my mind.
YOU ARE WRONG!!
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".
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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