Judge who tossed Apple-Motorola suit questions need for software patents
Judge Richard Posner, who recently dismissed Apple's patent infringement case against Motorola, believes the smartphone industry is plagued by a "proliferation of patents."
Posner, who is on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, spoke with Reuters and shared his thoughts on the intellectual property war currently underway in the heavily competitive smartphone market. The judge questioned whether software patents are necessary, because developing software requires much less of an investment than pharmaceutical companies have in creating a successful drug.
"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
The 73-year-old judge volunteered to oversee the Apple-Motorola case. When the trial began, he used a court-issued BlackBerry, but he eventually switched to an Apple iPhone that he only uses for e-mail and phone calls to his wife.
As Apple and Motorola argued in court, Posner was an outspoken critic of Apple's tactics. In May, he accused Apple's lawyers of making "frivolous" and "untimely" filings.
Posner said he was actually looking forward to overseeing the case between Apple and Motorola, but he couldn't have a trial "just for fun," and he felt he had no choice but to toss out the lawsuit. Last month, the two-year conflict was brought to an end by Posner, who also ruled that Motorola could not seek an injunction against the iPhone because it had pledged to license its own patents to other companies under fair and reasonable terms.
Posner is the most-cited U.S. legal scholar of the 20th century, according to intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. He said the appeals judge is also well known for being "outspoken."
Posner said he understands why technology companies, particularly those who make smartphones, have turned to litigation in an attempt to gain an edge over their competitors. Even the high legal fees are a "small expense" for a company like Apple, which had $110 billion in cash and securities as of the end of the March quarter.
"It's a constant struggle for survival," Posner told Reuters. "As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal."
With the Apple-Motorola case in Chicago tossed, the next big courtroom showdown in the smartphone patent wars will be the trial between Apple and Samsung. This week, those two companies pared down their patent infringement claims against one another in preparation for the start of their trial in California on July 30.
Posner, who is on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, spoke with Reuters and shared his thoughts on the intellectual property war currently underway in the heavily competitive smartphone market. The judge questioned whether software patents are necessary, because developing software requires much less of an investment than pharmaceutical companies have in creating a successful drug.
"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
The 73-year-old judge volunteered to oversee the Apple-Motorola case. When the trial began, he used a court-issued BlackBerry, but he eventually switched to an Apple iPhone that he only uses for e-mail and phone calls to his wife.
As Apple and Motorola argued in court, Posner was an outspoken critic of Apple's tactics. In May, he accused Apple's lawyers of making "frivolous" and "untimely" filings.
Posner said he was actually looking forward to overseeing the case between Apple and Motorola, but he couldn't have a trial "just for fun," and he felt he had no choice but to toss out the lawsuit. Last month, the two-year conflict was brought to an end by Posner, who also ruled that Motorola could not seek an injunction against the iPhone because it had pledged to license its own patents to other companies under fair and reasonable terms.
Posner is the most-cited U.S. legal scholar of the 20th century, according to intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. He said the appeals judge is also well known for being "outspoken."
Posner said he understands why technology companies, particularly those who make smartphones, have turned to litigation in an attempt to gain an edge over their competitors. Even the high legal fees are a "small expense" for a company like Apple, which had $110 billion in cash and securities as of the end of the March quarter.
"It's a constant struggle for survival," Posner told Reuters. "As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal."
With the Apple-Motorola case in Chicago tossed, the next big courtroom showdown in the smartphone patent wars will be the trial between Apple and Samsung. This week, those two companies pared down their patent infringement claims against one another in preparation for the start of their trial in California on July 30.
Comments
Hmm...see, I think judges aren't always necessary in court cases...especially those with litigation between tech companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
How can you be so smart and so wrong? Patents are the lifes-blood of innovation. Without them, we'd eventually be ruled by oligarchs, since power would centralize as competition dropped away. Patents mean the pirates only win sometimes, not always. Doh!
Why wouldn't copyright laws fill the need quite nicely if the concern is truly "copying"?
"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
I didn't read the entire text of the speech, but this line is troubling in the context of his just having thrown out a patent-related case. It's not a judge's job to decide what laws we "really need" or should have. It's his job to fairly apply the laws that we do have. This certainly raises the question as to whether he stepped over that line in this case. The fact that he "only uses his iPhone for mail" is somewhat troubling too. Doesn't sound like the best guy to understand the implications of software innovation. It's also troubling that he didn't get the Apple-Motorola case by the luck of the draw but went out of his way to take the case in the first place. He used his influence to take a high-profile software patent case; he dismisses said case; and then goes on the record saying that he doesn't believe we actually need software patents. Well, perhaps we don't need judges legislating from the bench either.
ATTENTION DEVELOPERS:
I hope you're sitting before you read this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The judge questioned whether software patents are necessary, because developing software requires much less of an investment than pharmaceutical companies have in creating a successful drug.
Interesting.
I think it's a bit insulting for him to say they are doing it only as a law of the jungle type tactic. There are such things as truly innovative UI elements, and truly innovative software algorithms, and people should be rewarded for inventing these by being given a temporary monopoly. It's not patents as such that are the problem, it is the poor judgment of those that award patents, who can not seem to tell the true innovations from the chaff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
The fact that he "only uses his iPhone for mail" is somewhat troubling too. Doesn't sound like the best guy to understand the implications of software innovation.
Good post. All of it. I just quoted a part of it for emphasis.
It sounds as if Posner doesn't really care about software. He might be bringing a "whatever, as long as it sends my e-mail" mentality into a judicial context.
Which is dangerous, to say the least, and is quite a drop-kick in the face to all developers.
If Posner would have thrown these remarks in, say, Bertrand Serlet's direction, Posner would likely have been left without a leg to stand on.
Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent.
Addendum:
However, substantive mastery of math and the sciences is no guarantee of quality thinking outside of that particular area. The habits of thought that brought this mastery must likewise be applied to the soft areas. I assume, without evidence, that a majority of those commenting on this site have at least mastered some aspects of IT. It is therefore disappointing to read the opinions and confusion expressed about IP laws: trademarks, copyrights (literature and computer programs, algorithms), patents (there are many kinds (business methods, utility, design, biological)), trade secret, NDAs (contracts). Different IP laws protect different kinds, and properties of IT products.
You all really need to put some effort into the IP areas, and stop making statements regarding these areas until you do.
As someone who has earned mathematics, science and legal degrees and skills, I understand the hard work necessary to have acquired some degree of mastery in these areas, but there is no shortcut. IP laws are quite difficult, made more so by opinions of those in power and with influence without any STEM knowledge.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
It's funny - I was just thinking how the legal system is plagued by a proliferation of laws...
I wonder whether Judge Judy is retiring soon...? It'd be nice to find just the right spot for this gentleman's dotage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent.
History Major here (double, in Classics and Theology)
I'm quite happy to be persuasive among the substantively incompetent.
Anyway, jokes aside, the problem seems to be that in the realm of software and related fields, technical knowledge in this area (or better yet, expertise) would *really* be an advantage when applied in a judicial context.
It would be nice if an "advisory panel" comprised of people like Bertrand Serlet or Jean-Marie Hullot existed to assist the courts in matters such as these. But that, too, costs time and money. Of course, that's why "expert witnesses" exist, but I doubt it's customary to use them in typical patent cases.
If there were a rational way to apply copyright to design and other features, it might, but since reverse engineering is so easy and these things aren't currently protected by copyright, then, no copyright laws would not protect innovation from vultures like Google. Besides, Google doesn't respect copyright law either, so what would be the difference?
Also, copyrights, if the law were properly amended to protect software innovation and hardware design, last a lot longer than patents. But overall, it's a simplistic, inadequate solution you suggest.
He obviously has no clue how the tech industry works. It only takes a few dollars to develop a software patent vs hundreds of millions when it comes to pharmaceutical companies. Obviously we know how his pockets are lined.
This guy obviously has no interest in the tech industry unless some company comes along and pockets him a few million in cash and then maybe he would sway the votes or change his mind or make a trip to Vegas or something stupid like that.
I always respect the opinion of elders because of their knowledge and experience. But in this case, I think this guy needs an very long and extended vacation. Apple should have this guy removed from the case and have another judge in place who understands technology.
I have always said that when it comes to the technology business, people who have no background whatsoever related to any field in technology SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OR AFFILIATED WITH THE BUSINESS.
AND THIS IS WHAT IS DESTROYING OUR TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY....BONEHEAD IDIOTS WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OUR INDUSTRY THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
There enough said. Now I can go back to work and code some more.
He obviously has no clue how the tech industry works. It only takes a few dollars to develop a software patent vs hundreds of millions when it comes to pharmaceutical companies. Obviously we know how his pockets are lined.
This guy obviously has no interest in the tech industry unless some company comes along and pockets him a few million in cash and then maybe he would sway the votes or change his mind or make a trip to Vegas or something stupid like that.
I always respect the opinion of elders because of their knowledge and experience. But in this case, I think this guy needs an very long and extended vacation. Apple should have this guy removed from the case and have another judge in place who understands technology.
I have always said that when it comes to the technology business, people who have no background whatsoever related to any field in technology SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OR AFFILIATED WITH THE BUSINESS.
AND THIS IS WHAT IS DESTROYING OUR TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY....BONEHEAD IDIOTS WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OUR INDUSTRY THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
There enough said. Now I can go back to work and code some more.
Patents should be reviewed by a body of peers for validity, accuracy, and applicability before being granted. The problem is frivolous patents have been granted because the person granting them is not an expert in the field.
I couldn't agree more Gustav
Wh… wh… wait, wait, let… wait, he…
He says they're not necessary… because there's LESS MONEY INVOLVED?!
That can't be what he means. That has to be a misquote.
Posters comments honestly sound like those of an old man loosing his grip on his facilities. If he had focused on software patents he may of had a valid point or two, instead he said patents where questionable for most industries. That is totally asinine. More so even if his point was valid, it is his job to enforce the law not make law.
There is nothing great about a man hanging on past his ability to execute his job correctly and rationally. If nothing else this is a clear sign that we need to get these old people out of the judicial system or at least review their mental competence as they age.