or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge cancels Apple patent-infringement trial against Motorola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge cancels Apple patent-infringement trial against Motorola

post #1 of 76
Thread Starter 
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
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.
post #2 of 76

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. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #3 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
Apple and Samsung will just go the next step up. 

 

Motorola.

post #4 of 76

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!

post #5 of 76
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!

Edited by DrDoppio - 6/7/12 at 2:48pm
post #6 of 76

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...

OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #7 of 76

ha ha. apple overburdening courts with ridiculous lawsuits. smack down on oracle. apple will get some smackdown too.

post #8 of 76

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. 

__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
post #9 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandyf View Post

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.
post #10 of 76

I bet the judge is mad at Apple because Tim Cook stole his french fries.

post #11 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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. 

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.
post #12 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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:  

 

  1. Apple Invents and Patents Something.  
  2. Apple rightfully expects to use that Something in their Products. 
  3. Apple rightfully expects to profit from the Sale of their Products that include that Something! 

  4. Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, use that Something by Apple in their own Products.  

  5. 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: 

 

  1. A combination ## 4 + 5 = Cause the Unrealized Gain on Apple's Investment in Research & Development!!  

  2. 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!

 

  1. Basically, only US Government is supposed to print US Dollars!!! 
  2. If anyone else does it, that's a crime! 
  3. If anyone else needs US Dollars, they Borrow It!!!  
  4. Thus Apple is the Only one to Profit form That Something That APPLE INVENTED!!! 
  5. Others can't be allowed just copy it! 
  6. 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!!!! 

 

 

Go  Apple!!!

Reply

Go  Apple!!!

Reply
post #13 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

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!

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.
post #14 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

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.

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.
post #15 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

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.

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.
post #16 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by macologist View Post

I agree…  The • injury • step by step:  
  1. Apple Invents and Patents Something.  
  2. Apple rightfully expects to use that Something in their Products. 

  3. Apple rightfully expects to profit from the Sale of their Products that include that Something! 




  4. Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, use that Something by Apple in their own Products.  




  5. 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: 



 



  1. A combination ## 4 + 5 = Cause the Unrealized Gain on Apple's Investment in Research & Development!!  




  2. 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!



 


  1. Basically, only US Government is supposed to print US Dollars!!! 

  2. If anyone else does it, that's a crime! 

  3. If anyone else needs US Dollars, they Borrow It!!!  

  4. Thus Apple is the Only one to Profit form That Something That APPLE INVENTED!!! 

  5. Others can't be allowed just copy it! 

  6. 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!!!! 



 



 



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.
post #17 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by macologist View Post

I agree…  The • injury • step by step:  
  1. Apple Invents and Patents Something.  
  2. Apple rightfully expects to use that Something in their Products. 

  3. Apple rightfully expects to profit from the Sale of their Products that include that Something! 




  4. Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, use that Something by Apple in their own Products.  




  5. 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: 



 



  1. A combination ## 4 + 5 = Cause the Unrealized Gain on Apple's Investment in Research & Development!!  




  2. 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!



 


  1. Basically, only US Government is supposed to print US Dollars!!! 

  2. If anyone else does it, that's a crime! 

  3. If anyone else needs US Dollars, they Borrow It!!!  

  4. Thus Apple is the Only one to Profit form That Something That APPLE INVENTED!!! 

  5. Others can't be allowed just copy it! 

  6. 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!!!! 



 



 



Quick, send this too Apple's lawyers since they apparently have no clue about injury and you do /s. thank god for forum members.
post #18 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

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.

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.
post #19 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


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.

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #20 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

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.
post #21 of 76

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

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 76

Fantastic - Glad to see he wont have to waste his time on another idiotic Apple case.

post #23 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

Fantastic - Glad to see he wont have to waste his time on another idiotic Apple case.

 

 

Not sure it's at all idiotic. The judge seems to have a lot of issues with process, and hasn't much addressed whether Apple's actual claims are legitimate. Instead, he seems to showing some bias, and to be deciding the case before it's been tried. I have a problem with that.

 

Punishing Apple for "too many patents", "frivolous claims", etc…? At what point does Apple have a valid claim then? He says they must show injury. Perhaps they are prepared to, by presenting a case at trial?

 

If they can prove it all without a trial, then why have one in the first place?

 

As an example, Samsung has passed Apple as the world's largest smartphone manufacturer. Mostly on the back of the Galaxy line of "copycat" phones. Look, before iPhone, Samsung phones were just like all the other legacy clamshell old-tech phones… iPhone leapt out ahead of the market, and Samsung "slavishly copied" iPhone to keep up. Motorola also has "used" numerous Apple patents without permission (or so Apple asserts). So what is "idiotic" about fighting for one's patent rights?

 

And why can't Apple have its day in court to address and possibly redress these alleged violations? And how is trying to do so "idiotic" in your mind?

post #24 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post
It's a sad, pathetic practice.

 

Used by nearly every company, including Google.

post #25 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by macologist View Post

I agree…  The • injury • step by step:  
  1. Apple Invents and Patents Something.  
  2. Apple rightfully expects to use that Something in their Products. 

  3. Apple rightfully expects to profit from the Sale of their Products that include that Something! 




  4. Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, use that Something by Apple in their own Products.  




  5. 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: 



 



  1. A combination ## 4 + 5 = Cause the Unrealized Gain on Apple's Investment in Research & Development!!  




  2. 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!



 


  1. Basically, only US Government is supposed to print US Dollars!!! 

  2. If anyone else does it, that's a crime! 

  3. If anyone else needs US Dollars, they Borrow It!!!  

  4. Thus Apple is the Only one to Profit form That Something That APPLE INVENTED!!! 

  5. Others can't be allowed just copy it! 

  6. 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!!!! 



 



 



That all makes sense but you're forgetting one thing. No judgement has made as to whether or not the patents in question have been violated. The burden of proof is on Apple, a judge isnt going to simply believe there's injury just because Apple claims there is.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #26 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

 

Not only does it make sense, it shows the judge as being quite (QUITE) sharp.  He also seems to have a pretty damn good grasp of what's going on technology wise.

 

He's also got a pretty good sense of humor, which is apparent in several places

 

My favorite part:

 

 

 But there is no evidence that he is the only engineer who is familiar with computer hardware (or software) that duplicates the functionality of the ‘263. So again imagine this imaginary conversation between Napper and Motorola, which I’ll pretend hired Napper to advise on how at lowest cost to duplicate the patent’s functionality without infringement: Motorola: “What will it cost us to invent around, for that will place a ceiling on the royalty we’ll pay Apple?” Napper: “Brace yourself: $35 million greenbacks.” Motorola: “That sounds high; where did you get the figure?” Napper: “I asked an engineer who works for Apple.” Motorola: “Dummkopf! You’re fired.”

Napper’s proposed testimony regarding damages for alleged infringement of Apple’s patent ‘263 is excluded. 

post #27 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

 

Thank you for linking this. If I may, I suggest that the author or editor of stories like this seek out the underlying documents and include them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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. 

 

That’s not quite right. Despite the seemingly straightforward “right to exclude” of patent law, an injunction requires “irreparable” injury—essentially that which cannot be quantified or cured solely by money damages. This is according to the Supreme Court of the United States. As for damages, while the party asserting an infringed patent may be able to get lost profits, the baseline or minimum is a reasonable royalty for infringing acts. But if you read Judge Posner’s opinion, you’ll see he has found that the methodologies the experts used to arrive at their asserted reasonable royalty rates were flawed, unreliable, junk science, etc. In effect, the reasonable royalty could not be proven to be anything greater than zero.
post #28 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

 

Not sure it's at all idiotic. The judge seems to have a lot of issues with process, and hasn't much addressed whether Apple's actual claims are legitimate. Instead, he seems to showing some bias, and to be deciding the case before it's been tried. I have a problem with that.

 

Punishing Apple for "too many patents", "frivolous claims", etc…? At what point does Apple have a valid claim then? He says they must show injury. Perhaps they are prepared to, by presenting a case at trial?

 

If they can prove it all without a trial, then why have one in the first place?

 

As an example, Samsung has passed Apple as the world's largest smartphone manufacturer. Mostly on the back of the Galaxy line of "copycat" phones. Look, before iPhone, Samsung phones were just like all the other legacy clamshell old-tech phones… iPhone leapt out ahead of the market, and Samsung "slavishly copied" iPhone to keep up. Motorola also has "used" numerous Apple patents without permission (or so Apple asserts). So what is "idiotic" about fighting for one's patent rights?

 

And why can't Apple have its day in court to address and possibly redress these alleged violations? And how is trying to do so "idiotic" in your mind?

 

The idea that a judge with his credentials is just being "bias" is hard to accept. "copycat"... "slavishly copied"... you claim that a day in court is a must yet judgement seems to have already been past before the case has even been lost by Samsung. You can not have it both ways.

 

To continue to do something that has time and again proven to be futile - is in many ways, idiotic. 

 

In the end a well respected Judge has canceled the case - hopefully Apple will now focus its legal actions instead of this "lets see what sticks" barrage of motions.

post #29 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

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.

Nonsense! Google isn't being sued by many companies because they aren't making much money on Android, so there's little to get from them. Hardware manufacturers are sued, because that's where the money is. Now that Google owns Moto, suing Moto is suing Google.
post #30 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Nonsense! Google isn't being sued by many companies because they aren't making much money on Android, so there's little to get from them. Hardware manufacturers are sued, because that's where the money is. Now that Google owns Moto, suing Moto is suing Google.

You do understand Apple is not seeking any money? So your post is pretty much bupkis.
post #31 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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
It's interesting, but a good deal of all of this has little to do with how licensing fees are negotiated. I know this from my own company. Licensing fees are not negotiated around the cost of working around those patents, even assuming it can easily be done, but around the value of the patent as to the usability and salability of the device. Also as to how long it would take, if possible, to produce a workaround, and therefor, how long the party who is attempting to license the patent has to wait to get their competing product out the door, and how many sales they will lose because of it.

In addition, most companies don't license many, or even most of their patents. They are used for competitive advantage. And the infringer isn't involved in paying a reasonable license fee, because no license fee that was reasonable would have been agreed to.

In addition, as I said earlier, it's very difficult to prove damages, even though they are likely to be obviously occurring. The very fact that a company was aware they were infringing means that they thought it better to take a chance they wouldn't be raked over the coals about it than work it out themselves, possibly because working it out for themselves meant they would lose a launch window that would cost them dearly.

As I said, this is a very complex issue, and arguments over software aren't always clear. We saw HTC's solution to the patent infringement. They said they "worked around the feature". Actually, they didn't. They removed it. Good chance that Motorola would have had to remove all of these features as well. And then their phones would have been just that much more uncompetitive. How much is that worth?

I also disagree with Posner when he says that this "isn't a popularity contest".

But that exactly what it is!!! Sales, and therefor, profits, are popularity contests. If Motorola sold 100,000 more phones because of all of the patent violations that occurred, including the ones Apple had to drop on Posner's insistence, then that could be lost sales for Apple. At an average of $550 per phone, that comes to $550,000,000. Who's to say that that number isn't plausible? How much should Apple receive for that. And should Motorola, being the one who took the IP be allowed to benefit from any of it?
post #32 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

 

then let them sue Google.

 

Google isn't the one monetizing the sales.  In fact, they are barely monetizing Android use even after-the-fact via the advertising that they are counting on.  Google gets more money in mobile advertising from iPhone users than Android users, so one might argue that - at least to date - Google has done harm to themselves with Android.  Not saying that will always be the case, but it appears to be so at the moment.  Add in the purchase of Motorola, and I'm not sure that the Android phone endeavor has been very beneficial for them at all!  Perhaps Google should sue Motorola (i.e.themselves) for stupidity.  ;-)

 

Thompson

post #33 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

Thank you for linking this. If I may, I suggest that the author or editor of stories like this seek out the underlying docXuments and include them.



That’s not quite right. Despite the seemingly straightforward “right to exclude” of patent law, an injunction requires “irreparable” injury—essentially that which cannot be quantified or cured solely by money damages. This is according to the Supreme Court of the United States. As for damages, while the party asserting an infringed patent may be able to get lost profits, the baseline or minimum is a reasonable royalty for infringing acts. But if you read Judge Posner’s opinion, you’ll see he has found that the methodologies the experts used to arrive at their asserted reasonable royalty rates were flawed, unreliable, junk science, etc. In effect, the reasonable royalty could not be proven to be anything greater than zero.

Irreparable harm includes lost sales. Sales that may never be retrieved. So lost sales are always a part of injunctive relieve.

But again, the difficulty is to prove this. While its pretty obvious that some lost sales will result (otherwise why add this infringing technology to your product?), proving it can be very difficult. I've seen companies lose cases because of no way to quantify a loss.

That seems to be happening here. In a number of the testimony exclusions, there seems to be a lack of thought of a realization that the nunbers could be correct. So what if that chip that would have cost Motorola was the only way they could have done this without infringing? Posner throws out the testimony. But, despite the source, it could have been correct. In fact, it could have cost more, because the number I saw didn't seem to include the engineering to use that chip, both hardware and software. It could have cost a lot more to include it.

The cost of a part is rarely the only cost, and sometimes is the least significant part of the cost. Also, the later in the design process a new component is introduced, the more expensive it is to incorporate it. Again, from my own experience in design and manufacturing. But you can get that information from any text on design and manufacturing.

Also, there seems to be an assumption on the part of Posner, and even some of the experts that all of these infringements can be worked around. We don't know if any of them can be worked around, either in part, in full, or in a way that's satisfactory. If that's the case, the IP is worth far more, because Apple could just refuse a license. As these are not FRAND patents, there would be nothing that Motorola could do.
post #34 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

The idea that a judge with his credentials is just being "bias" is hard to accept. "copycat"... "slavishly copied"... you claim that a day in court is a must yet judgement seems to have already been past before the case has even been lost by Samsung. You can not have it both ways.

To continue to do something that has time and again proven to be futile - is in many ways, idiotic. 

In the end a well respected Judge has canceled the case - hopefully Apple will now focus its legal actions instead of this "lets see what sticks" barrage of motions.

He hasn't actually cancelled it yet, Apple has until Monday to respond.

But let's not forget that if the case does result in a cancellation, Motorola loses too, as their absurd demands for their FRAND patents are lost as well, and they were asking far more than Apple is.
post #35 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

You do understand Apple is not seeking any money? So your post is pretty much bupkis.

Don't get nasty! I'm easily nastier than you. And when you don't understand the issues, you just look silly.

I was responding to the remark that Google wasn't being sued. I replied, quite correctly, that it was because Google hadn't made much money off this, and so properly, hardware companies who did, were being sued instead. This is standard procedure. You first need to understand that, and what I said.

Then, a company doesn't have to sue for cash, as you mistakenly seem to think, to make this a money issue. Apple doesn't want Motorola, or any other company profiting off their patented IP. This is also standard. No company wants that. So Apple isn't suing for a few measly tens of millions of dollars, which, by the way, Motorola would probably be delighted to pay, as it's an insignificant number.

No, Apple want them to stop using said patented tech. This is reasonable, and again, is standard procedure. By preventing Motorola from using that, Apple could easily cut Motorola's sales, and could increase their own. This is money, my boy. Much more money than they would get by giving Motorola licenses. This is also something you need to understand.

So, you bet this is about money! Lots of money. Far more money than Motorola could possibly afford to lose, especially since its smartphones sales are falling, and Motorola is in a bad financial position.

So when you say my post is bupkis because Apple isn't suing for money, it just shows you don't have an understanding of the issues. It's ALWAYS about the money. That's all it ever is about.
post #36 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


SNIP
73 isn't that old in this business. I doubt he's ready to be carried off just yet.

 

Glad to hear it... I'm 5 years younger, so there's hope for me yet!

post #37 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


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.

Not at all. Apple probably had to prove that it lost sales or lost money (or had its reputation damaged, or some other injury that could be quantified in dollars) as a result of Motorola's infringement. The ruling means that Apple didn't prove that it lost anything. Just because Motorola sold a few phones doesn't mean Apple lost any sales - the burden of proof was on Apple. Now there still could be a ruling that Motorola infringed, and Apple could get injunctive relief (a blocking of sales of the infringing phones).

post #38 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

 

...Despite the seemingly straightforward “right to exclude” of patent law, an injunction requires “irreparable” injury—essentially that which cannot be quantified or cured solely by money damages. This is according to the Supreme Court of the United States...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Irreparable harm includes lost sales. Sales that may never be retrieved. So lost sales are always a part of injunctive relieve...

 

 

 

It seems to me that "lost sales" can be cured by money damages, so they aren't irreparable. Law Talkin' Guy is making a very compelling point against an injunction. As to damages, Apple should prove it actually lost sales because of this patent's use by Motorola, but last thing I heard was that it was selling every iPhone it ever made, and making them as fast as it could.

post #39 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post


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.

So much for thermonuclear...

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #40 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

 

Google isn't the one monetizing the sales.  In fact, they are barely monetizing Android use even after-the-fact via the advertising that they are counting on.  Google gets more money in mobile advertising from iPhone users than Android users, so one might argue that - at least to date - Google has done harm to themselves with Android.  Not saying that will always be the case, but it appears to be so at the moment.  Add in the purchase of Motorola, and I'm not sure that the Android phone endeavor has been very beneficial for them at all!  Perhaps Google should sue Motorola (i.e.themselves) for stupidity.  ;-)

 

Thompson

 

 

So you believe patents are only infringed if it achieves commercial gains?  Even if the source of the infringement has sold enormously worldwide?


Cut it off at the head, Google.  Anything else is pointless fluff.

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge cancels Apple patent-infringement trial against Motorola