Slashdot Mirror
Judge Slams Apple-Motorola Suit As 'Business Strategy'
jfruh writes "Faced with an Apple vs. Motorola lawsuit that involves 180 claims and counterclaims across 12 patents, a judge in Florida has thrown up his hands and accused both companies of acting in bad faith. Claiming the parties' were engaged in 'obstreperous and cantankerous conduct', he said that the lawsuit was part of 'a business strategy that appears to have no end.'"
Fighting is stupid. You should just concentrate on making a great product, just like Apple does. Note that, Motorola/Google, and stop fighting.
He is entirely correct. But this is what the US patent and court system has brought things to. There is no substantial downside to patent litigation for companies of this size. Even if you lose, you win, because you've forced your competitor through the legal defense ordeal.
Is he implying that Apple's business strategy is somehow tied into massive, pervasive, and obvious patent trolling? No sir, simply won't buy it. Everyone knows they invented rounded corners.
I got here through a series of tubes
that the judge blurting out what is obvious to anyone following the case is a clear violation of protocol.
Figures tongue lashings and pointy fingers should patch this issue right up.
Until we see punishment for such business practices, they'll continue to be profitable. As long as they're profitable, companies will continue to use such business practices. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that judges are also seeing the idiocy that certain policies seem to lead to, but given how these companies sometimes even blatantly disregard the courts... They'll just find a different patent and sue in a different court system until they get their money back.
I can't see how Motorola's using the lawsuit as a business strategy. They didn't file it, they don't want to be in court, and they have no choice about showing up or about what claims they have to defend against. I'm getting more and more annoyed at judges who get mad at defendants for having the temerity to stand up and defend themselves against the claims the plaintiff has made. If their defenses are meritless, then just rule so and be done with it. If they aren't meritless, then the blame for any complexity lies with the party making the claims, not the defense.
Can we stop pretending that Motorola is a separate company. It's Google. Motorola is now just a brand owned by Google. The company calling the shots is Google.
That had the scrolly features patched away because of one of these lawsuits and sees what kind of bullshit this is. This quite literally happened to one of my friends phones after all this debacle about using the finger to scroll shit.
The judge should ask Apple if it plans to be in business 200 years from today.
When Apple says yes, the judge should suspend the suit and schedule another hearing in 100 years.
To an immortal corporation, a "speedy trial" can easily be measured in centuries.
He is entirely correct.
Except this game(sic) as you put it did not exist [in the mobile sphere], everyone got along and licensed their patents to each other through FRAND, and them Steve Jobs with a few weak obvious interface patents and a few basic shape design patents...and a first out of gate [apart from that other phone] product, ever since then its been Apple patent raping one end of the phone industry to get the to sell Windows Phones [Seriously WTF?] to Microsoft patent raping them at the other to get them to License Windows Phone [and put a little in Ballmers retirement fund]...Lets call it what it is a misuse of Legal system through patents by companies who cannot compete through innovation [While slipping a few thousand into group troll companies].
Sounds like a sensible response from the judge. But what is the long term solution here? Maybe there needs to be a mechanism for disallowing "obvious" ideas to be patented. But then there is the problem of defining what is "obvious". There must be some pretty boring/bored patent lawyers out there.
How can lawyers get even richer if they can't set up laws that generate legal conflict?
Except this is little to do with Lawyers, and everything to do with Steve Jobs protecting Apple from being out innovated by Android, a market that made it the richest company on earth with a market cap of over $400 Billion and $140Billion sat around in cash. The Lawyers are a trivial expense, of what the Judge rightly calls a bushiness strategy.
Claiming the parties' were engaged in 'obstreperous and cantankerous conduct', he said that the lawsuit was part of 'a business strategy that appears to have no end.'
Motorola lawyer: Yeah.
Apple lawyer: And?
Judge: *long pause* *deep sigh* Very well. *gets up, starts walking towards lawyers* I believe, at this point, I am legally permitted, by the great State of Florida, to dope-slap the both of you. Not only am I permitted to do so, I may be legally required as well, something I am not about to question. Please turn around.
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
Do you feel the Microsoft Windows Phone licensing model fits this royalty and licensing model you suggest? Many on Slashdot claimed that the licensing approach they deployed was simply extortion to increase the cost of Android to match Windows Phone.
Fairly pricing your royalty and licensing costs for patents have always been an issue, a la Xerox. Of course, that's sort of exactly what the patent system is designed to enable - it grants a temporary monopoly to a business in exchange for public disclosure of a proprietary innovation.
It all really falls apart when the patented "innovations" are obvious to the majority of skilled designers or engineers.
Apple has been pulling this crap since way before Google even existed.
The history of this lawsuit, and much of Apple's legal shananagins, prove this without a doubt.
Apple is pedatory, and loves to abuse the legal system. Google, not so much.
a judge can reassign his caseload however he wants until retirement in many jurisdictions, and in all of them if the head of judicial assignments also thinks it's noise. it is far more common to dismiss for frivolity or abuse of the system. but then the t1t vs. tat lawsuits pop up somewhere else. if a Federal judge ices the case, it's not going to bite anybody.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Its funny though that just a year ago, while Apple was riding high as the world's most valued company, judges were quick to rule in favour of Apple, now judges are just tired of the same old bullshit.
It's actually been more like 1 year, 6 months and six 6 days since the beginning of Apple's decline in the public eye.
What we are seeing is the steady unraveling of Steve Job's reality distortion field (patent pending). Things seem to have been turning around - for the worse - for Apple ever since their blessed founder's death.
They need to carefully search his former office for some fingernail clippings, invest a few billion dollars in human cloning, and get themselves a new Steve Job (an iJob, patent pending) before things go completely tits up. Not to mention they could then sell the process - a sort of immaculate conception (iConception, patent pending) - to any and all comers.
Man, I come up with such good ideas, I don't understand why Cupertino won't answer my calls. ;-)
That's the completely self-serving, Apple-zealot version of the story, yes.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
FRAND is an agreement among the in-group to increase their ability to compete with those not a member of the in-group. It serves little, if any, other function. Who gets to determine what's a fair and reasonable price? It's not you if you don't have deep pockets.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.