Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Judge Declares Apple-Samsung Patent Battles "Ridiculous"
New submitter Ahab's compliments writes "Score another point for sensible judges — the judge in point wants to know why this dispute over the wireless technologies developed by Samsung and used by Apple shouldn't be settled through mediation. 'Why on earth are these proceedings going ahead?' Bennett asked the lawyers in court today. 'It's just ridiculous.' The judge also rejected a request to hear the various patent infringement claims from either side in separate cases."
it's curious that perhaps the change we've all wanted for so long is not coming from a foundation, or lobby group, or grassroots uprising, but just from a bunch of annoyed judges who don't particularly enjoy these cases or the wasted time they come with.
I feel maybe we should. They are wasting taxpaper dollars through their squabbling. (Plus other reasons like using Foxconn to build their devices & locking-down users' freedom.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I think the judge's intent, especially in refusing to separate the cases, is to wrestle both parties into playing nice, stopping their tantrums, and actually trying to reach a reasonable compromise.
In other words, emphasizing the "civil" in "civil court".
There's nothing like $HOME
This is bullshit. I don't usually defend faceless corporations, but I do defend the truth. Apple has been attacking samsung for a long time, and since the system is screwed, the only defense samsung has is hitting them back.
Saying they are at each others throats is bullshit. Apple has been at samsung's (and everybody else's) throat for a long time, and samsung is hitting back.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
It is absurd if a patent set up in the first country must be recognised in a second country, but the second country does not have the power to declare an invalidation which is also recognised in the first.
The implication is that it is more important to create patents (no matter how absurd they are) than to repeal bad patents.
There are many problems of this sort with inter-state EU legislation, too.
Indeed. Congratulations on spotting one of the many imbalances in the current system.
Indeed this is the status quo: if something is patented in one country, other countries have agreed that they too will honor the patent. Yet if something is *invalidated* in one country, there is no requirement that this invalidation is honored elsewhere. And this is true despite it being easy, simple and cheap to get a patent, compared to the enormous expense and close scrutiny that goes into getting one invalidated.
In other news: why does the berne convention only specify that countries should have a minimum length of copyright, and that countries that have too *short* protection are in violation - while saying nothing at all about the maximum duration and allowing countries to set copyright to a million years with no issues. Where's the -balance- in that ?
Keep in mind Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett was referring to why this wasn't in mediation, that's it.
And it's a fair point by the judge, things don't go to negotiation first, they go straight to court. Reminds me of squabbles by rich people in my old home town, fighting over every little stupid perceived slight or whatever, driving their El Dorados over each others lawns, etc. Judge had enough and forced them to sort out who owned what by a court appointed mediator. Judge was furious this family tied up the courts rather than settle things among themselves. Court should be last resort, not first. But I don't suppose you're going to hear legal counsel say that, unless they are company lawyers who would rather be doing something other then fighting in court all the time.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Point of FRAND is that anyone can walk up to patent holder and get a license for the standard technology on same terms as everyone else.
I think FRAND allows you to get a license for the standard technology on FAIR terms, not the SAME terms as everyone else. If you enter the FRAND agreement w/o a patent portfolio to add to FRAND, it seems fair to me that you should pay more than those who do. They did the work and spent money to develop the technology used in 3G and covered by the patents. If you did not, pay more to those who did.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Things are paid for by whatever the parties agree to. This may be money, goods, services, or something more creative.
Nobody is trading ownership of intellectual property in these agreements. They are simply promising not to sue each other if they happen their products happen to implement something that the other party has patented.
On what planet did I suggest anything even remotely close to Apple giving up a $100B business? I simply suggested that it is fair that Apple agrees to pay a small fee per device sold and promises not to sue over any functional patents that they own in exchange for using the technologies covered by Samsung's FRAND patents - just like all of the other licensees presumably have done.
Most of Apple's patents are related to software and cover broad, abstract, and trivial concepts, all of which should make them unpatentable. The only country absurd enough to grant these patents is the U.S. and if the USPTO ever gets its act together, these patents could go away overnight. Samsung is merely trying to use the FRAND patents to protect itself from Apple's onslaught of lawsuits over these frivolous patents.