Judge accuses Apple, Google of using courts as 'business strategy' instead of settling

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Apple and Google-owned Motorola aren't showing any signs of interest in actually settling their patent disputes, said one federal judge in Florida. Instead, the two firms are more interested in using the courts as a business strategy.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola said in Miami on Thursday that the two firms are abusing the court system with their increasingly complex patent case, according to Bloomberg. The patent struggle between Apple and Motorola involves more than 180 claims related to 12 patents, as well as the meaning of more than 100 terms.

Google


Each party has accused the other of infringing on patents related to wireless technologies. The initial suit was filed in 2010, but it has since grown.

"The parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute," Scola said in an order dated Wednesday, "they instead are using this and similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end. This is not a proper use of this court."

Using even more harsh terms, Scola's order declined the request of the two companies that the court intervene to cut down on the complexity of the case.

"Without a hint of irony," the order read, "the parties now ask the court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case."

The judge's order gave the two companies four months to narrow the case's scope on their own. Should they be unable to reach terms, Scola will then put the case on hold until he can resolve the disputes over the definitions of patent terms.

Motorola's initial 2010 suit named the iPhone, iPod touch, and certain Macs as infringing on patents Motorola held. Those patents included 3G, GPRS, and 802.11 wireless technologies, as well as certain aspects of Apple's antenna designs.

Apple soon responded, filing a countersuit alleging that several Motorola handsets infringed on Apple patents. Apple said Motorola's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, and six other smartphones infringed on six Apple patents, including "multipoint touchscreen," "object-oriented system locator system," and "ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces."

Even as Google acquired Motorola, the patent struggle continued, with Google executives saying at the time that there were no plans to cease litigation efforts.

In January of last year, Motorola filed for an injunction, seeking to block sales of Apple's iPhone 4S as well as Apple's iCloud service. That suit named six patents that Apple was said to be infringing, including a "receiver having concealed external antenna" and "multiple pager status synchronization system and method." Motorola filed that suit separately from the action begun in 2010, as it was deemed that the 2010 suit was too far along for new patents to be added.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Would it be an idea if the legal system aided he Patent Office? Instead bullying companies trying to protect their IP?
  • Reply 2 of 59
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    "The parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute," Scola said in an order dated Wednesday, "they instead are using this and similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end. This is not a proper use of this court."


     


    I don't think you get it, your honor. One company made, the other stole. They talked about licensing, the thief disagreed. So lawsuit.


     


    It's a legal right. Now do your job and preside over the case or give it to someone else and cut out the crap.

  • Reply 3 of 59


    If Judge Robert Scola can't understand the case perhaps he's better suited to presiding over minor traffic violations and parking ticket disputes... I mean, he wouldn't be so out of his depth - Florida being such a genteel state with the average age being about 85! 


     


    /s

  • Reply 4 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post


    If Judge Robert Scola can't understand the case perhaps he's better suited to presiding over minor traffic violations and parking ticket disputes... I mean, he wouldn't be so out of his depth - Florida being such a genteel state with the average age being about 85! 


     


    /s



    I think Judge Scala understands the reasons for the lawsuits just as well as Judge Barbara Crabb and Judge Richard Posner. All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.

  • Reply 5 of 59
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post


    If Judge Robert Scola can't understand the case perhaps he's better suited to presiding over minor traffic violations and parking ticket disputes... I mean, he wouldn't be so out of his depth - Florida being such a genteel state with the average age being about 85! 


     


    /s



    Only 17.6% of the Florida population is over even 65.   Across the entire U.S, 13.3% of the population (in 2011) is over 65.   

  • Reply 6 of 59


    I don't think the judge is questioning their right to have a case, the judge is questioning how they go about it. Specifically, the judge obviously wants an efficient trial. Instead both parties threw as many patents and claims as they could come up with into the case. Now both companies have realized the case is too unwieldly and they want the judge to help them figure out what are the essential patents and claims the case should proceed on. This is what the judge wanted from the beginning so I don't think it's surprising the judge is annoyed.

  • Reply 7 of 59
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member


    What this judge said has been said many times in the past with lots of different companies. This is nothing new. Yes using the courts is definitely a business strategy and suing your competitor is just one tool of many a company can pull out of the strategy tool box to win the war over who gets the consumers dollars.


     


    Yeah Apple does not want to settle since they are hoping the Motorola purchase will become irrelevant in the big scheme of things and will be gone as a cell phone company. Also if Samsung move away from Adriod to something else and no company is using Adriod then Apple wins. The only way that will happen to to keep dragging it out so no company is willing to take on the risk.

  • Reply 8 of 59
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I think Judge Scala understands the reasons for the lawsuits just as well as Judge Barbara Crabb and Judge Richard Posner. All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.

    They can believe whatever they want. That doesn't change the fact that Apple has the right to sue over intellectual property theft. If they don't want to do their job, it's time for them to retire.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I don't think you get it, your honor. One company made, the other stole. They talked about licensing, the thief disagreed. So lawsuit.



     


    That's a pretty mean thing to say about Apple, just because they're using other companies' essential patents without paying license fees. /s


     


    Seriously, as many people have noted, these software patent fights seem rarely to be about "stealing" code or anything else that is specific to an implementation.

  • Reply 10 of 59
  • Reply 11 of 59
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.

    Considering how long legal systems around the world haven't hesitated in using all manner of industries in order to charge exorbitant amounts of money I'd say, "Payback is a bitch".

    Time to work for a living, Your Honour.
  • Reply 12 of 59
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    I've always had problems with Federal judges requiring companies to "simplify" their cases. I believe that it is actually unconstitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, I have had a couple of companies. Both had copyrights, trademarks, and most importantly, patents.

    The rights given to the owners of those marks are given by the Constitution. The limitations to them are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the methods by which those rights may be modified by legislative action. Nowhere is it specified that the courts may arbitrarily limit those rights.

    What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. They are removing the right of those holders to their constitutional right to defend those patents in court, and thereby obtain compensation for unlawfull use by others.

    So far, companies have been willing to go along with these requirements, though they aren't pleased about it. I would imagine that if they wished, they could appeal these court requirements as limiting their rights under the Constitution. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would rule, if they took the case. It has, in the past, ruled that courts had no right to limit the defense of defendants, and that legislation was required instead.

    I do realize that these cases can drag on forever (it would feel) but, that's the fault if having too many cases for too few courts. It's not a fault of the cases themselves. After all, the results of these cases will be felt decades from now, and would affect tens of billions in sales, and even profits, for a single litigant. It's no wonder these companies are so willing to immerse themselves in such complex, time consuming, and expensive litigation. A single loss, or win, in just one case could transfer billions of sales and profits from one company to the other.

    I don't know any real way out of this, but requiring the limiting of the rights granted by the Constitution may not be a legal way out if it, even if it is being done today.
  • Reply 13 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    I've always had problems with Federal judges requiring companies to "simplify" their cases. I believe that it is actually unconstitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, I have had a couple of companies. Both had copyrights, trademarks, and most importantly, patents.



    The rights given to the owners of those marks are given by the Constitution. The limitations to them are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the methods by which those rights may be modified by legislative action. Nowhere is it specified that the courts may arbitrarily limit those rights.



    What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. They are removing the right of those holders to their constitutional right to defend those patents in court, and thereby obtain compensation for unlawfull use by others.


    No they're not Mel. The companies still have their patents and copyrights. They can still bring a lawsuit to enforce those rights. The courts are saying don't put every one of them into a single lawsuit, constantly amended, and make it too difficult to fairly consider each side's assertions and defenses. But they've not taken away the right of IP holders to defend their "property".

  • Reply 14 of 59
    Hey AI, no update on the second Samsung/Apple trial? Samsung has had the majority of their claims tossed while Apple's claims are valid.
  • Reply 15 of 59
    Hey AI, no update on the second Samsung/Apple trial? Samsung has had the majority of their claims tossed while Apple's claims are valid.
  • Reply 16 of 59
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I think Judge Scala understands the reasons for the lawsuits just as well as Judge Barbara Crabb and Judge Richard Posner. All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    ... What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. ...


     


    They are complex cases in many cases. It's also the case that most of the judges, although generally intelligent, likely have little to no understanding of technology, and may actually fear it. Many may recall in U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson basically admitted that he had no idea what to do. The Judges involved in these disputes likely don't have any better understanding of the issues. They know the law, but the subject matter is so alien to them that they have no idea how to apply it.


     


    In effect, any patent trial is a "business negotiation" and the Judges frequently encourage the parties to do just that, but, when the negotiations fail, or as in this case when one of the parties (Google/Motorola) isn't negotiating in good faith and contrary to the commitments they've made, it's the court's responsibility to deal with it. Unfortunately, in these case, the judges are mostly throwing up their hands, or, in the case of Judge Posner, blatantly allowing their decisions to be ruled by their personal biases. (It's obvious where his biases, his ignorance and perhaps his investment portfolio lie when he holds up the pharmaceutical industry as his poster boy of how and where patents work well, and are a public good.)


     


    This whining that they are pawns in a business negotiation and demands that cases be whittled down to arbitrary limits is nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement that they are incapable of understanding the issues, and their expression of frustration this causes them. I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but expediency isn't justice. Maybe it's time for the legal system to just admit that they can't handle these issues and come up with a new framework where they can.

  • Reply 17 of 59
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    No they're not Mel. The companies still have their patents and copyrights. They can still bring a lawsuit to enforce those rights. The courts are saying don't put every one of them into a single lawsuit, constantly amended, and make it too difficult to fairly consider each side's assertions and defenses. But they've not taken away the right of IP holders to defend their "property".



     


    The problem with that is that, by arbitrarily limit what can be included in the case, it can take away the force of one side's argument, where the sheer volume of infringements may affect any number of decisions. Can one fairly consider each sides assertions if you don't let them present them all and kneecap them by limiting the time they are allowed to do so? I don't think so.


     


    And, in fact, lawyers for Google/Motorola and Samsung know this, so they complicate the cases intentionally by throwing FRAND/SEP patents into them just to muddy the waters and make it more likely that the judge will arbitrarily force out a good number of assertions on both sides. In effect, they're gaming the incompetence of the legal system to deal with these issues to, if not get a favorable outcome, to at least get as small a negative outcome as possible, with as narrow a negative decision as possible.

  • Reply 18 of 59
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    No they're not Mel. The companies still have their patents and copyrights. They can still bring a lawsuit to enforce those rights. The courts are saying don't put every one of them into a single lawsuit, constantly amended, and make it too difficult to fairly consider each side's assertions and defenses. But they've not taken away the right of IP holders to defend their "property".

    You do t seen to understand the issue at all. What I've stated is exactly the issue. You said it isn't, but then go on to restate what I've said in your own inimitable way without realizing it.
  • Reply 19 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    You do t seen to understand the issue at all. What I've stated is exactly the issue. You said it isn't, but then go on to restate what I've said in your own inimitable way without realizing it.


    How are they being denied the right to enforce their IP Mel? They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 or whatever as needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.


     


    As FOSSPatents mentioned earlier today, if there weren't so many claims added from both sides then this case would have been scheduled to be heard last year. The original claims would have already been decided and perhaps headed to an appeal. As is it apparently won't make the docket until sometime in 2014, and that's assuming the claims are trimmed somewhat. 

  • Reply 20 of 59
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    anonymouse wrote: »

    They are complex cases in many cases. It's also the case that most of the judges, although generally intelligent, likely have little to no understanding of technology, and may actually fear it. Many may recall in U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson basically admitted that he had no idea what to do. The Judges involved in these disputes likely don't have any better understanding of the issues. They know the law, but the subject matter is so alien to them that they have no idea how to apply it.

    In effect, any patent trial is a "business negotiation" and the Judges frequently encourage the parties to do just that, but, when the negotiations fail, or as in this case when one of the parties (Google/Motorola) isn't negotiating in good faith and contrary to the commitments they've made, it's the court's responsibility to deal with it. Unfortunately, in these case, the judges are mostly throwing up their hands, or, in the case of Judge Posner, blatantly allowing their decisions to be ruled by their personal biases. (It's obvious where his biases, his ignorance and perhaps his investment portfolio lie when he holds up the pharmaceutical industry as his poster boy of how and where patents work well, and are a public good.)

    This whining that they are pawns in a business negotiation and demands that cases be whittled down to arbitrary limits is nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement that they are incapable of understanding the issues, and their expression of frustration this causes them. I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but expediency isn't justice. Maybe it's time for the legal system to just admit that they can't handle these issues and come up with a new framework where they can.

    The court system serves a purpose. In the case of non criminal cases, I.e., usually civil business cases, the entire issue is the stake of the businesses themselves. After all, that why the Constitution grants the right holders the rights they did. Of course the courts will be in the middle. That's the way it must be. We don't have businesses firing at twenty paces. It's also why business are granted a number of the rights of people. For a court to say that it doesn't want to be in the middle is absurd! Of course it will be in the middle. And what is a patent dispute other than a business dispute?
Sign In or Register to comment.