Judge cancels Apple patent-infringement trial against Motorola
Apple's patent-infringement case against Google's Motorola Mobility unit is dead in the water after a U.S. judge aborted the proceedings less than one week before the trial was set to start.
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner rejected arguments from both sides on Thursday, effectively canceling the case ahead of its scheduled June 11 start date, reports Bloomberg.
?You have to prove injury,? Judge Posner said at the end of the last pretrial conference.?I?m sorry that it seems to be petering out like this.?
The suit was merely one of a number of cases between the two companies but was significant in that it would have been the first to go to trial since Google officially assimilated Motorola Mobility in March.
Leading up to today's decision, Judge Posner had been extremely critical of filings presented by both sides and seemingly the case in general. In February the judge complained that too many patents were being leveled and asked Apple to "winnow" its claims. This was followed by a critique of Apple's request for certain documents pertaining to Google's takeover of Motorola as being too "vague." Apple's legal tactics were also brought into question as Judge Posner called an early April motion to reconsider "troubling," saying that the document's two main arguments are "flagrant misreadings" of a March order. Most recently the judge said he was tired of "frivolous filings by Apple" and forbade the company from submitting further motions without first moving for leave to file.
The Journal of Legal Studies labeled Judge Posner as being the most-cited U.S. legal scholar of the 20th century and the distinguished 73-year-old jurist is the author of nearly 40 books which range in subject matter from jurisprudence to economics.
Judge Richard A. Posner speaking at the University of Chicago where he is a senior lecturer. | Source: University of Chicago
Apple first filed its case in Wisconsin as a countersuit to a Motorola ITC complaint filed in October 2010. The iPhone maker began by citing six patents, but that number quickly swelled and reached a high-point of 24 in December 2010. As of Thursday, Apple had pared down its claims to include only four patents.
Judge Posner is still deliberating whether to move forward with an Apple request for injunctive relief and said he would issue a statement later today.
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner rejected arguments from both sides on Thursday, effectively canceling the case ahead of its scheduled June 11 start date, reports Bloomberg.
?You have to prove injury,? Judge Posner said at the end of the last pretrial conference.?I?m sorry that it seems to be petering out like this.?
The suit was merely one of a number of cases between the two companies but was significant in that it would have been the first to go to trial since Google officially assimilated Motorola Mobility in March.
Leading up to today's decision, Judge Posner had been extremely critical of filings presented by both sides and seemingly the case in general. In February the judge complained that too many patents were being leveled and asked Apple to "winnow" its claims. This was followed by a critique of Apple's request for certain documents pertaining to Google's takeover of Motorola as being too "vague." Apple's legal tactics were also brought into question as Judge Posner called an early April motion to reconsider "troubling," saying that the document's two main arguments are "flagrant misreadings" of a March order. Most recently the judge said he was tired of "frivolous filings by Apple" and forbade the company from submitting further motions without first moving for leave to file.
The Journal of Legal Studies labeled Judge Posner as being the most-cited U.S. legal scholar of the 20th century and the distinguished 73-year-old jurist is the author of nearly 40 books which range in subject matter from jurisprudence to economics.
Judge Richard A. Posner speaking at the University of Chicago where he is a senior lecturer. | Source: University of Chicago
Apple first filed its case in Wisconsin as a countersuit to a Motorola ITC complaint filed in October 2010. The iPhone maker began by citing six patents, but that number quickly swelled and reached a high-point of 24 in December 2010. As of Thursday, Apple had pared down its claims to include only four patents.
Judge Posner is still deliberating whether to move forward with an Apple request for injunctive relief and said he would issue a statement later today.
Comments
This is far from over. Posner might be renowned but he's still just a Circuit Judge and here are levels above him. Apple and Samsung will just go the next step up.
Injury or not, if someone is violating your IP you have a right to smack them down with at least a legal order to cut it out or get fined in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Apple and Samsung will just go the next step up.
Motorola.
I'm wondering if this judge at 73 is still learning from experience - and thus improving and more rational in his thoughts and decisions... or is he past his sell-by date and thinking more about the easy life of putting his feet up in a retirement garden... so tossing out the difficult cases on a whim!
Quote:
Has the planet gone mad? My phone, passion's hostage. I seek justice - denied! I shall not submit! I shall conquer! I shall rise! My name is Addams Apple, and I have seen evil!
I'm certainly no attorney nor judge, but he was so friggin hot on the topic of jurisprudence he should have tossed this before it got this far.
As far as economics, maybe he just wasn't making enough on the side...
ha ha. apple overburdening courts with ridiculous lawsuits. smack down on oracle. apple will get some smackdown too.
For the love of Pete, the Judge is a scholar and advised Apple to prove injury in order to proceed...that the lawsuits being tossed and leveled by BOTH sides needed to be winnowed. I don't know the ins-and-outs of sue strategy but it's clear that one tactic is to win by attrition...whether right or wrong. In this case, both claimants are juggernauts and the BS is Piling up, High and Deep. But let's not castigate Judge Posner for just trying to make one or both sides prove injury before moving onward.
Talk about BS... You seem to be awash yourself. If they sold even one device that is infringing that would be an injury! If Motorola is infringing a patent, regardless of injury, they should be stopped. The judge's rarionale would be like saying there can be no charge of "attempted murder" as there was no injury. The fact of the matter is that google deliberately and flagrantly copied Apple's IP and Motorola, Samsung, HTC, et al are guilty of monetizing Apple's property.
I bet the judge is mad at Apple because Tim Cook stole his french fries.
It's not over, as Posner has given Apple until Monday.
But he's also a guy whose opinion, if appealed, is less likely to be overturned than many others. To that effect, he's rarely overturned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Injury or not, if someone is violating your IP you have a right to smack them down with at least a legal order to cut it out or get fined in the future.
I agree… The • injury • step by step:
Apple Invents and Patents Something.
Apple rightfully expects to use that Something in their Products.
Apple rightfully expects to profit from the Sale of their Products that include that Something!
Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, use that Something by Apple in their own Products.
Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, profit from the Sale of their Products which include that Something by Apple, but THEY DON'T PAY APPLE for that Something that APPLE INVENTED!!!
Therefor • injury • is:
A combination ## 4 + 5 = Cause the Unrealized Gain on Apple's Investment in Research & Development!!
Apple Loses $$ every time a Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company Product that uses that Something by Apple is sold, because of that Something by Apple, and also because it might be cheaper than Apple's Product, but still offers that Something my Apple!!!
That's my basic understanding of How Patents are supposed to work, if all parties Do The Right Thing!!! But, it seems to me that sometimes some companies decide to Steal I.P. and Take Their Chances In Court, to see if they can get away with it!!! Even if they lose and are ordered to pay later, they are still coming out ahead, because they've sold a bunch of products while the Court Cases proceeded for years, or so…
Obviously, I've simplified thing my analogies, but To Say That There Was No Injury is another way of saying:
Hey guys, I am not in the mood for this! It's too nuanced! It's Summer! I want to go to the beach!
Basically, only US Government is supposed to print US Dollars!!!
If anyone else does it, that's a crime!
If anyone else needs US Dollars, they Borrow It!!!
Thus Apple is the Only one to Profit form That Something That APPLE INVENTED!!!
Others can't be allowed just copy it!
If they need it, they have to Borrow - License it from Apple!!!!
If Apple can't get a Fair Settlement in all those cases, they should Take All Such Case all the way to the Supreme Court, or wherever The Buck Stops!!!! Maybe there should be some PR Compaign in between exposing such IP Theft, Ridiculing the Copy Cats?! I don't know, but The Copy Cats can not be allowed to Steal and Get Away With It!!!!
I doubt it. I've read a number of his opinions. They are very rational and logical. They are described as often being well above what the law requires. 73 isn't that old in this business. I doubt he's ready to be carried off just yet. Also, he asked for this case.
These issues are very complex. Proving injury isn't always that easy. How can Apple prove that Android sales cut Apple"s sales because of this patent violation? That's tough. If it were obvious, the case would have been easily won by Apple.
Yet they can not prove injury, just because your opinion cries injury, there apparently is not any. I am glad this judge sees through the crap fest known as Apple lawsuits.
You have to actually prove that there was injury from this one patent violation. We know that there was a violation, but that doesn't prove injury. What if Adroid buyers never bought the product specifically because of the use of this patent in Android phones? How can you prove that one way or the other?
You would say that it's obvious. But is it? Not really.
And if you could prove that, it still doesn't prove injury. You then have to prove that every purchase of an Android product made because of the use of this patent took away a sale from Apple. How can you prove that?
These are pretty intangible things.
Quick, send this too Apple's lawyers since they apparently have no clue about injury and you do /s. thank god for forum members.
Well, no doubt there is injury. But proving it is something else. And don't forget that Motorola sued Apple first here. And Motorola is using FRAND patents, which they are not supposed to do. They have been castigated in Europe for doing that, and are being investigated for restraint of trade because of it along with Samsung.
Bothe companies have nothing else with which to sue, and both have violated agreements they have made both here and abroad regarding their use of FRAND patents. Indeed, both have singled out Apple in unfair regard. Motorola has also singled out Microsoft. What they've done here is to attempt to charge Apple as much as 100 times the going rate for these FRAND patents, which may be illegal. At least the EU thinks so, and the US is investigating it as well.
Every company has the right to sue over patents they own. That's the law in every country. FRAND patents are different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Talk about BS... You seem to be awash yourself. If they sold even one device that is infringing that would be an injury! If Motorola is infringing a patent, regardless of injury, they should be stopped. The judge's rarionale would be like saying there can be no charge of "attempted murder" as there was no injury. The fact of the matter is that google deliberately and flagrantly copied Apple's IP and Motorola, Samsung, HTC, et al are guilty of monetizing Apple's property.
then let them sue Google.
That don't have the courage. Google is another American company with bottomless pockets same as Apple. It is much easier to go after the foreign companies that are at a disadvantage in the states in the hopes of winning. Then they can take that win and go after Google. If they went after Google directly, they would spend far more money. It's a sad, pathetic practice.
I haven't seen anyone link the judge's Daubert order in which he explains his problems with Apple's valuation of those patents. If you read it thru does make sense, to me at least, even if you'd rather it didn't.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94900952/Judge-Posner-s-Daubert-Order-in-Apple-v-Motorola