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

Finally

[Vskye]

A judge that gets it. A refreshing change for once.

Re:Finally

[haploc]

He's the judge that really adroitly handled the Microsoft antitrust trial, then flubbed it by speaking to the press about the trial before it was over. That gave Microsoft the grounds for an appeal (and subsequent 'slap on the wrist' punishment) based on him 'not being impartial'. Which was bunk, but his mistake gave the appearance, and that was enough.

That judge was Thomas Penfield Jackson.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Posner is probably the most famous judge alive that's not in the SCOTUS. His words may even be mroe influential than some Supreme Court judges. His decisions are in practically every law case book that every law school student will read in every subject imaginable.

Also, as pointed out above, he wasn't the judge that handled the Microsoft antitrust case.

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...

Re:Catastrophe theory

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you are a Samsung fan-boy then?

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:Catastrophe theory

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:Catastrophe theory

[chrb]

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".