or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge criticizes Apple's attorneys for 'frivolous filings' in Motorola case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge criticizes Apple's attorneys for 'frivolous filings' in Motorola case

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
A prominent U.S. judge has declared that he is tired of "frivolous filings" from Apple's attorneys in an ongoing patent infringement dispute with Motorola.

"I've had my fill of frivolous filings by Apple," Judge Richard A. Posner, of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, wrote in an official order. In addition to being an appeals judge, Posner is also the most-cited U.S. legal scholar of the 20th century, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

The outspoken judge rejected a motion from Apple that sought to prevent Motorola Mobility from deposing a particular expert. Exact details on Apple's motion are unknown because it remains under seal, but Posner said one half of Apple's motion was "frivolous," while the other was "untimely."

"The next such motion, and I shall forbid (Apple) to file any motions without first moving for leave to file," the judge added in his decision.

Mueller said that Apple previously drew the ire of Posner because, in his eyes, the iPhone maker attempted to use an expert's wife's medical condition to block a deposition. After the first attempt was rejected, Apple's attorneys made a second attempt to block the expert only three days later, without citing health issues.

Posner's threatened sanction against Apple was described by Mueller as one that could put Apple at a "practical" disadvantage, though not "substantive." He said the judge's words are likely just a warning that likely won't play a part in the proceedings.

Posner
Judge Richard A. Posner, via Wikipedia.


Posner is the same judge who, back in February, complained about the number of patents Apple is arguing in its ongoing case against Motorola. The judge asked Apple to "winnow" its claims, and both Apple and Motorola voluntarily dropped some claims in order to be cooperative.

Posner also issued an order in March upholding some of Apple's patent claims against Motorola. That initial decision has been viewed as a sign that Motorola will be found to have infringed on Apple's patented inventions.

And a month ago, Posner also shot down Apple's motion to reconsider a ruling of a patent case with Motorola. He said that Apple's motion filed with the court was founded on "flagrant misreadings," which he characterized as "troubling."
post #2 of 40

Nothing new judge.
 

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #3 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

 

 

Way to go Apple!

 

Half of their case was frivolous, and had to be pared back, but they keep piling on the  frivolous motions and frivolous filings. 

 

Here's a clue:  Posner does not fall for hamhandedl attempts to construct a Reality Distortion Field.  

 

 

And, in the end, this judge that you are praising to high heavens has sided with Apple on the important issues. From above:
"Posner also issued an order in March upholding some of Apple's patent claims against Motorola. "

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #4 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

 

 

Way to go Apple!

 

Half of their case was frivolous, and had to be pared back, but they keep piling on the  frivolous motions and frivolous filings. 

 

Here's a clue:  Posner does not fall for hamhandedl attempts to construct a Reality Distortion Field.  

 

He's not a fanboi predisposed to believe every defective word-sleight offered to him.

 

And, in the end, this judge that you are praising to high heavens has sided with Apple on the important issues. From above:
"Posner also issued an order in March upholding some of Apple's patent claims against Motorola. "


Psst... Don't take the hot air out of Zither's balloon! It's funny see how much more hot air he can blow!
post #5 of 40

And? Posner has also come down on Motorola as well. He's a no-nonsense judge who pulls no punches. Just because he gets mad at some Apple motions doesn't mean he's going to rule against Apple. He'll look at the facts of the case and base his decision on those.

 

But just to remind people, the single biggest patent Apple has against Android was affirmed by Posner earlier this year. You know, the one Andy Rubin "stole" from Apple when he worked there. Not the multitouch patent (which is another biggie).

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #6 of 40

It's no wonder that Tim Cook dislikes using litigation; Apple is spending loads of money on lawyers and getting precious little in return.  

post #7 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

It's no wonder that Tim Cook dislikes using litigation; Apple is spending loads of money on lawyers and getting precious little in return.  

 

In my own experience, the legal system is more or less a joke.

post #8 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

 

 

Way to go Apple!

 

Half of their case was frivolous, and had to be pared back, but they keep piling on the  frivolous motions and frivolous filings. 

 

Here's a clue:  Posner does not fall for hamhandedl attempts to construct a Reality Distortion Field.  

 

 

And, in the end, this judge that you are praising to high heavens has sided with Apple on the important issues. From above:
"Posner also issued an order in March upholding some of Apple's patent claims against Motorola. "

 

At no point have I praised Posner to high heavens.  

 

If you want to dispute anything I say, have at it.  But this constant dispute of things I never said is ... bizarre. 

post #9 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

It's no wonder that Tim Cook dislikes using litigation; Apple is spending loads of money on lawyers and getting precious little in return.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

 

 

In my own experience, the legal system is more or less a joke.

 

I beg to differ- the legal system is necessary to right a wrong.

BUT it does seem to be very much in need of an edit pen rather than loaded with all the petty add-ons if the judge is right (which they always are) .

post #10 of 40
For those of us who don't spend much time following the details of litigation, it would be interesting to know whether this kind of exchange is unusual, or typical for cases like this.
post #11 of 40
Has Florian Mueller accepted the full-time staff writer position at AppleInsider yet?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #12 of 40

He may as well. He's already on both Oracle and Microsoft's payroll.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Has Florian Mueller accepted the full-time staff writer position at AppleInsider yet?

 

 

There is no reason for AI to make such an offer.  As of now, they get his stuff for free.

post #14 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

For those of us who don't spend much time following the details of litigation, it would be interesting to know whether this kind of exchange is unusual, or typical for cases like this.


There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.

 

Not really. It was a technicality and happens sometimes.

Not to mention, of course, that it will be appealed and we'll have to wait to see what the appeals court says. ITC decisions are very frequently overturned on appeal.

 

Background at:
http://www.itcblog.com/20120427/alj-pender-issues-sanctions-order-against-apple-in-certain-wireless-communication-devices-337-ta-745/

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #16 of 40

Hmmm - we need to clone this guy and send them out to rough-up the 9th circuit court in Cali. We need tough no-nonsense judges that know the laws, or at least have the wherewithal to fact-check lawyers and reign in the idiocy.

 

Poor ZZZ, facts are such inconvenient items! GRIN.

 

Gator - you keep making these statements with no evidence to back them up. Put your money where your mouth(fingers?) is and deliver, or stop making unsupported and unsupportable statements.

If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Not really. It was a technicality and happens sometimes.

Yes really. It's very unusual for seasoned attorneys to get court sanctions, not to mention embarrassing for the attorneys involved. You must be bored to continually call others wrong all day just to disagree..

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post
Gator - you keep making these statements with no evidence to back them up. Put your money where your mouth(fingers?) is and deliver, or stop making unsupported and unsupportable statements.

Example?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 40

It IS unusual.  Monetary sanctions against counsel is definitely unusual.  Having a judge (any judge, not just a highly respected one) state on the record that he is fed up with your frivolous motions is also unusual.  I speak from 33 years experience as a trial lawyer.  If a judge said that to me, or to an associate of mine, I would be quite embarrassed and not a little concerned about my future in the case, and my client's future in the case as well.  

Also, I have NEVER heard a judge tell counsel that if the frivolous motions continue they will need to seek leave from the court before filing any other motions.  That is pretty extraordinary in my experience. I have seen that happen a few times, but only for pro se litigants who appear to be mentally unstable, mostly in connection with divorce and family law proceedings and the like.  I would not want to be lumped together with mentally unstable divorce litigants, in the mind of my judge.

post #20 of 40

Keep at 'em Apple. 

 

"The next such motion, and I shall forbid (Apple) to file any motions without first moving for leave to file," the judge added in his decision.

 

It isn't the lawsuits he's objecting to as such, but rather, Apple's last-minute maneuverings. Some of them might be unorthodox.   

post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdwatson View Post

It IS unusual.  Monetary sanctions against counsel is definitely unusual.  

 

That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Keep at 'em Apple. 

 

"The next such motion, and I shall forbid (Apple) to file any motions without first moving for leave to file," the judge added in his decision.

 

It isn't the lawsuits he's objecting to as such, but rather, Apple's last-minute maneuverings. Some of them might be unorthodox.   

 

And the judge is likely to get himself slapped down by the appeals court if Apple chooses to appeal. They have the legal right to file anything they wish. A court can not take away that right simply because the judge is lazy and doesn't want to deal with all the patents that are involved.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.

 

Good Lord Jr, read your own link which is titled 

ALJ Pender Issues Sanctions Order Against Apple In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

http://www.itcblog.com/20120427/alj-pender-issues-sanctions-order-against-apple-in-certain-wireless-communication-devices-337-ta-745/

 

You must be multi-tasking and doing a poor job of it. Listening to Gatorguy rather than Jragosta today might be the better advice. Tomorrows another day, and maybe you'll be back to form by then.

 

I'm betting you won't admit you were wrong anyway. Let's see...


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/12 at 2:16pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

For those of us who don't spend much time following the details of litigation, it would be interesting to know whether this kind of exchange is unusual, or typical for cases like this.


There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.

 

 

That's news to me.  I wonder why AI didn't report it?

 

 

Here's a link to the NLJ story about it.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202550466388&slreturn=1

post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Not really. It was a technicality and happens sometimes.

Yes really. It's very unusual for seasoned attorneys to get court sanctions, not to mention embarrassing for the attorneys involved. You must be bored to continually call others wrong all day just to disagree..

 

Not only that, but the sanctions were for lying to the court in the opening statement and in a pretrial brief.  Pretty nasty stuff.

post #25 of 40

I originally mentioned it a few days back. Perhaps as one poster here said, Apple getting a court sanction wasn't unusual anyway, so nothing new and worthy of reporting. :)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Good Lord Jr, read your own link which is titled 

ALJ Pender Issues Sanctions Order Against Apple In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

http://www.itcblog.com/20120427/alj-pender-issues-sanctions-order-against-apple-in-certain-wireless-communication-devices-337-ta-745/

 

You must be multi-tasking and doing a poor job of it. Listening to Gatorguy rather than Jragosta today might be the better advice. Tomorrows another day, and maybe you'll be back to form by then.

 

I'm betting you won't admit you were wrong anyway. Let's see...

 

Yes, I'm aware that it's too much for you to read past the headlines. If you actually read the article, it says:

"Thus, ALJ Pender ordered Apple to reimburse MMI for the effort and reasonable costs spent in responding to Apple’s erroneous position and in responding to Order No. 32."

 

Of course, no one expects you to admit that you're wrong because virtually every post you make is wrong.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #27 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Yes, I'm aware that it's too much for you to read past the headlines. If you actually read the article, it says:

"Thus, ALJ Pender ordered Apple to reimburse MMI for the effort and reasonable costs spent in responding to Apple’s erroneous position and in responding to Order No. 32."

 

Of course, no one expects you to admit that you're wrong because virtually every post you make is wrong.

So Jragosta, did the judge order sanctions against Apple as I wrote, or didn't order any as you claimed (writing "That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions.")

 

 Only one of us can be right. I already know the answer.

Just curious if you can admit when you're wrong.

 

FWIW I had posted news several days ago that Apple was ordered to pay Moto's added legal fees that resulted from the dishonesty of their counsel. You're not telling me anything I didn't know long before you took notice this had happened.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/12 at 3:09pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

It's no wonder that Tim Cook dislikes using litigation; Apple is spending loads of money on lawyers and getting precious little in return.  

 

Well, if he dislikes it so much, I bet he could make it stop.  This and the guy suing for a logic board replacement, where NVIDIA would have paid for the replacement but, instead, Apple is sending barristers to court means the legal team's culture is off.

 

I don't like post-Jobs Apple so much, and everything I hear makes me like it slightly less.  (Though if I get a high-res (greater than 1080p) MacBook monitor in the refresh, much will be forgiven.)

post #29 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So Jragosta, did the judge order sanctions against Apple as I wrote, or didn't order any as you claimed (writing "That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions.")

 

 Only one of us can be right. I already know the answer.

Just curious if you can admit when you're wrong.

 

FWIW I had posted news several days ago that Apple was ordered to pay Moto's added legal fees that resulted from the dishonesty of their counsel. You're not telling me anything I didn't know long before you took notice this had happened.

 

You said that it was very unusual and indicated egregious behavior on Apple's part. In reality, having one party ordered to pay the other's legal fees is not the least bit unusual.

And the most common use of 'sanctions' is a fine that the party pays to the court - which didn't happen in this case.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's what happens when you listen to Gatorguy. The judge didn't issue sanctions. Rather, the judge ordered Apple to pay a portion of Motorola's legal expenses. And, yes, that does happen quite a bit.


And the judge is likely to get himself slapped down by the appeals court if Apple chooses to appeal. They have the legal right to file anything they wish. A court can not take away that right simply because the judge is lazy and doesn't want to deal with all the patents that are involved.
It sounds like you are confusing attorney’s fees, which can be a remedy for the ultimate cause of action, with sanctions. The former does happen often enough. But being penalized for filing a frivolous motion, and being ordered to pay the adversary’s costs in opposing that specific motion, is much rarer. The linked article expressly identifies it as a sanction under 19 C.F.R. § 210.4, so that should eliminate your confusion.

And the judge very much so has the authority to control his docket and order what the parties may file and when. I’m not sure where you have gotten your information.

To correct an error in the story, Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is just sitting by designation on the district court.
post #31 of 40

Jragosta, it was a really simple question. Was I right that the Judge ordered sanctions, or were you when claiming he didn't?


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/12 at 4:20pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

It sounds like you are confusing attorney’s fees, which can be a remedy for the ultimate cause of action, with sanctions. The former does happen often enough. But being penalized for filing a frivolous motion, and being ordered to pay the adversary’s costs in opposing that specific motion, is much rarer. The linked article expressly identifies it as a sanction under 19 C.F.R. § 210.4, so that should eliminate your confusion.
And the judge very much so has the authority to control his docket and order what the parties may file and when. I’m not sure where you have gotten your information.
To correct an error in the story, Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is just sitting by designation on the district court.

Thank you sir for your input. JrAgosta still won't admit he was wrong however, so expect him to tell you that you have no idea what you're "talkin'" about any more than the Judge's in the two cases. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

He may as well. He's already on both Oracle and Microsoft's payroll.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


There was ...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes really. It's very ....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Example?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Good Lord Jr....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I originally ....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So Jragosta, ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Jragosta, it was a really simple ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thank you sir .....

 

Holy crap! 28% of the posts so far!! Give us a frackin' break...... PLEASE. 

 

Get a job. A life. Take a walk. Whatever.

post #34 of 40

Sorry for the delay in responding. I was hanging a ceiling fan. ;)

 

EDIT: Being a bit more serious, while you might think that's a lot of posts I'm not even in the top 10 for the past week. The top 3 are TS (a mod, so expected), Jragosta and Z.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/pages/stats/top/range/7day/#members


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/12 at 6:36pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Nothing new judge.
 

 

every case has crap like this but hey he can name drop Apple and get some fame. 

 

He doesn't seem to be tired of Moto's FRAND abuse, or Samsung's. 

 

I wonder when he declares against Apple in one of these cases how fast they will appeal on the grounds that they weren't allowed to file a motion because the judge was in a cranky mood and didn't want to be bothered with it. Probably get the appeal if it happens and they do use that reason. Which is why I think this guy is basically blowing smoke

post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


There was another instance involving Apple's counsel last week. An ITC judge ordered sanctions against Apple for lying to the court, also requiring Apple to pay the additional legal costs incurred by Moto due to the false claims. That was unusual.

 

The ITC is not a court, it's an admin board and on more than one occasion their sanctions have been overturned in appeals or in the actual trial. 

 

And it's probably not that unusual of an occurrence. 

post #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rufwork View Post

This and the guy suing for a logic board replacement, where NVIDIA would have paid for the replacement

 

 

 

Therein lies the issue. The facts. As in you don't have them straight and neither do some of the posters. the ITC thing was not a COURT sanction because the ITC isn't a court. And the guy with the NVIDIA issue was refused that replacement unless he agreed to other non covered repairs that were to items that rendered his computer unusable. He didn't want to pay the $500 or whatever for the other problem so he went to small claims to force the issue over replacing the board which put Apple in a position to just give him a whole new computer to shut him up even though he didn't deserve one. 

 

and so on. And for the record, all of this started very much in the Jobs era so don't go blaming Tim Cook for any of it. If anything he's trying to end it quickly by agreeing to things like the Samsung mediation talks. 

post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

every case has crap like this but hey he can name drop Apple and get some fame. 

 

He doesn't seem to be tired of Moto's FRAND abuse, or Samsung's. 

 

I wonder when he declares against Apple in one of these cases how fast they will appeal on the grounds that they weren't allowed to file a motion because the judge was in a cranky mood and didn't want to be bothered with it. Probably get the appeal if it happens and they do use that reason. Which is why I think this guy is basically blowing smoke

 

Actually, he did criticize Motorola at least as severely as Apple. See Mueller's blog for the details.

Funny how zzz and gatorguy seem to leave that part out.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #39 of 40

So the judge calls the preceedings frivolous, but can't/won't disclose those proceedings. (due to the "seal" over the docs)   So nobody gets a chance to rebut his statements.   As noted elsewhere, this would have been a good opportunity for him to keep his mouth shut.  He could have worked directly with Apple over his concerns.  But he had to go to the press...

post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Actually, he did criticize Motorola at least as severely as Apple. See Mueller's blog for the details.

Funny how zzz and gatorguy seem to leave that part out.

The Moto scolding was almost two months ago. This Apple news happened this week which is why AI wrote a new article.  If anything it shows how fair Judge Posner is treating each party. When Apple is wrong they get the Judge's ire just as well as when Moto strays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

The ITC is not a court, it's an admin board and on more than one occasion their sanctions have been overturned in appeals or in the actual trial. 

 

And it's probably not that unusual of an occurrence. 

The ruling was by a judge in a legal proceeding in and ITC court. Yes, he can issue sanctions, which he did. I don't what you're depending on for support that attorneys lying to the court and getting sanctioned happens regularly. As real attorneys posted in this thread, it's pretty unusual.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge criticizes Apple's attorneys for 'frivolous filings' in Motorola case