or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple injunction against Motorola phones would be 'catastrophic,' judge says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple injunction against Motorola phones would be 'catastrophic,' judge says

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
A U.S. judge was unimpressed with arguments made by Apple at a Wednesday hearing meant to explain why injunctive relief is a suitable course of action against Motorola in the company's ongoing patent case with the Droid maker.

Although Judge Richard Posner, who is sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, didn't make any rulings at the court hearing he did say an injunction against Motorola's phones could have "catastrophic effects" and thus remains leery of Apple's position, reports Reuters.

Attorney Matthew Powers said that the iPhone maker was not seeking to ban on infringing handsets and would be satisfied with an injunction that forced certain Apple-patented technology currently being used by Motorola be replaced within three months. There are four Apple patents remaining from the complaint first filed in 2010. The number of patents asserted has been drastically reduced as part of a "winnowing" process called for by Judge Posner in February.

From the original filing:

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 - "Method and apparatus for displaying and accessing control and status information in a computer system"

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 - "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics"

Added in the ensuing months:

If Apple were to win an injunction it would force Motorola to use its own technology, further differentiating the iPhone from Android-based handsets.

"It means we're not competing with them where they are using our technology against us," Powers said.

Judge Richard Posner
Judge Richard Posner.


Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer. He goes on to say that issuing an injunction wouldn't stop Apple from reasserting the claims again three months from now.

"That's all we need is new actions, new suits, because there's not enough litigation worldwide between Apple and Android," Judge Posner said.

At the heart of the matter is the U.S. patent system which has come under fire in light of the numerous lawsuits cropping up between tech companies on a near-daily basis.

Motorola itself has one patent left in the case, U.S. Patent No. 6,359,898 for 3G/UMTS connectivity, though the company has vowed to license it on a fair use basis in return for having the tech become a wireless industry standard. The claim is under review and raises many questions over FRAND licensing.

"I don't see how you can have injunction against the use of a standard essential patent," Judge Posner told Motorola.

It remains unclear what Judge Posner is planning for the suit, but the jurist already canceled the case temporarily and decided to rehear arguments two weeks later. Overall the judge has been critical of both parties throughout the suit and looks to be running a tight court allowing no room for attorney error.
post #2 of 48
Quote:
If Apple were to win an injunction it would force Motorola to use its own technology, further differentiating the iPhone from Android-based handsets.

Oh, how horrible. No. Say it isn't so. /complete_and_utter_deadpan
Quote:
"That's all we need is new actions, new suits, because there's not enough litigation worldwide between Apple and Android," Judge Posner said.

Hey! Sarcasm is our business, buddy. Your job is to enforce the frigging laws, not claim there are "too many lawsuits" if they're all valid. They get judged on their own terms.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #3 of 48
When you have wronged, should not there be consequences?!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Although Judge Richard Posner, who is sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, didn't make any rulings at the court hearing he did say an injunction against Motorola's phones could have "catastrophic effects" and thus remains leery of Apple's position, reports Reuters
and?
You hijack an airplane? We blow up an entire airport of yours!
You steal our patents? We force you into bankruptcy!

I guess it's now okay to use any patents you want then (maybe) pay later.
Or not.
Quote:
"That's all we need is new actions, new suits, because there's not enough litigation worldwide between Apple and Android," Judge Posner said
I didn't know Apple was suing an operating system or vice-versa...
post #5 of 48

Great. Only in Illinois.

post #6 of 48

Is he thinking clearly?

Quote:
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer.

 

Isn't that what patents are for? You develop a superior technology and use it to your own advantage and let your competitors develop their own technology.  If you want you can license it, but in a competitive business you keep it to yourself.  To me he is saying it is ok to steal your competitors technology and when they complain, demand that they license it to you because it is superior technology and it will hurt consumers if they don't.

 

This judge needs to recuse himself from these cases as I don't think he is thinking clearly.

post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

When you have wronged, should not there be consequences?!

Punishment should come after it is deemed a wrong not before, if an injunction is given and it turns out there was no patent infringement then how would Motorola recoup the lost sales?
"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 #8 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Albaugh View Post

Isn't that what patents are for? You develop a superior technology and use it to your own advantage and let your competitors develop their own technology.  If you want you can license it, but in a competitive business you keep it to yourself.  To me he is saying it is ok to steal your competitors technology and when they complain, demand that they license it to you because it is superior technology and it will hurt consumers if they don't.

This judge needs to recuse himself from these cases as I don't think he is thinking clearly.

Then why are there FRAND patents? Motorola invented the mobile phone, using your logic no one else should be allowed to make one.
"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 #9 of 48

Boo-hoo.

post #10 of 48

I think that old dude's gone senile.

 

Apple vs Android worldwide has absolutely no bearing on the facts being placed before him and shows that he is not being impartial in reaching decisions.

 

Consumers won't be hurt, if they want the tech they can buy it from Apple or a company Apple, as owner, CHOOSES to license it to, obviously that is NOT the Motorola subsidiary of Google.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #11 of 48

Here's a simple idea judge.  Make Motorola and all the other iPhone copy cats pay out the ass.  That will promote.... wait for it..... THEIR OWN INNOVATIONS!!!!  Why is it ok for these other companies to copy Apples hard work and research??  Why should they get a free ride?  Oh poor Motorola will be devastated if the ruling is in Apple's favor, well maybe they should have thought about that before they turned on their photo copiers and blatantly ripped off someone else's ideas and innovations.  Sucks to be them but they did it to themselves, now it's time to pay the piper.  YOU DO THE CRIME YOU PAY THE FINE!!!  I'm sick and tired of these judges letting the offending off because it would hurt their business.  Tough crap!  Come up with your own ideas.  "it would force them to use inferior technologies" !!! well then innovate and make your own!!  Sorry for the rant, I feel better now.  

post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Albaugh View Post

Isn't that what patents are for? You develop a superior technology and use it to your own advantage and let your competitors develop their own technology.  

Yep. Provided the patent isn't under FRAND, there is no law that says Apple must license the patent. If this judge makes that call Apple will have an appeal filed within the hour. As for what will stop Apple from filing gain in 3 months how about Moto getting rid of the violating tech.

If this is about a prelim injunction, fine. Make Moto put up a bond to cover damages if the case goes against and let them have at. If this is the final judgement and they lost, screw them it should hurt. Injunct away.

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 #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Punishment should come after it is deemed a wrong not before, if an injunction is given and it turns out there was no patent infringement then how would Motorola recoup the lost sales?

If Moto wins they can sue for damages. Heck in Germany if you want an injunction you have to post a bond that is decided by the courts and goes to the other side if thy win. Not a bad idea to have in the US

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 #14 of 48
Posner is one of the greatest legal minds alive. You may disagree with the outcome, but you can't criticize his understanding of the law.
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Albaugh View Post

Isn't that what patents are for? You develop a superior technology and use it to your own advantage and let your competitors develop their own technology.  If you want you can license it, but in a competitive business you keep it to yourself.  To me he is saying it is ok to steal your competitors technology and when they complain, demand that they license it to you because it is superior technology and it will hurt consumers if they don't.

This judge needs to recuse himself from these cases as I don't think he is thinking clearly.

He's not going to recuse himself, but he's in serious danger of having his decision overturned if he decides to force Apple to license the technology to Motorola. The entire purpose of patents is to provide an exclusivity to the inventor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Then why are there FRAND patents? Motorola invented the mobile phone, using your logic no one else should be allowed to make one.

FRAND patents are entirely different - because the patent owner voluntarily agrees to FRAND terms in return for their technology being included in a standard. No one can force someone to offer their patent as FRAND if they don't wish to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

Posner is one of the greatest legal minds alive. You may disagree with the outcome, but you can't criticize his understanding of the law.

He may or may not be a great legal mind. That doesn't mean he can't made a mistake. Furthermore, that doesn't preclude his 'great legal mind' losing some sharpness at his age. If he does order Apple to license the patents, we'll see what the appeals court says.
"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 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

Posner is one of the greatest legal minds alive. You may disagree with the outcome, but you can't criticize his understanding of the law.

Even "one of the greatest legal minds alive" has a "best before date". From everything that I've read, I suspect that Judge Posner is past his "best before date".

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Even "one of the greatest legal minds alive" has a "best before date". From everything that I've read, I suspect that Judge Posner is past his "best before date".

What have you read? Mainly appleinsider?

 

It is generally true that judges have a better understanding of technology, than nerds have of the law.

 

And it goes without saying that Posner has a better understanding of the law than anyone commenting on this thread.

post #18 of 48
The judge acts like a drama queen. Getting caught is always catastrophic for a thief. That's the way the system is supposed to work.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #19 of 48

Remember when Posner supposedly "dismissed" this very case just two weeks ago, but added the disclaimer that his decision "wasn't final"? People all over were saying he can't just throw out the case and that he would be appealed. Well, he allowed the case to continue which I think he was planning all along.

 

I don't see this as any different. I think he's getting sick of both sides and wants to get down to settling this and is using some harsh words to get everyone to "hurry up". Suggesting Apple should license to Motorola doesn't mean that he's going to try and force Apple to license (which he couldn't legally do anyway, IMO). He's making a strong suggestion that the two sides should sit down and maybe come up with some possible solutions, one of which may be licensing.

 

And Posner saying an injunction could have "catastrophic effects" doesn't mean he wouldn't consider it. For example, if Motorola was being unreasonable to an Apple offer, then Posner could say "well, we gave you a viable option so now it's come down to an injunction". Or he could be suggesting to Motorola to "come up with a solution of your own because what you're facing is catastrophic".

 

I think people shouldn't take his statements to mean he's already decided how thing's should go - I think he just likes to stir the pot.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl View Post

What have you read? Mainly appleinsider?

 

It is generally true that judges have a better understanding of technology, than nerds have of the law.

 

And it goes without saying that Posner has a better understanding of the law than anyone commenting on this thread.

So you believe that his view that because it would be better for customers buying Motorola phones that Apple should be forced to license technology they created to differentiate their products and patented to protect to their competitors.  You want to talk about killing innovation.  Apple failed to protect themselves with the original Mac OS and that screwing over was part of what helped kill their innovative spirit.  Just think if they didn't take off for 10 years and where we would be by now.  We got stuck waiting for Microsoft to innovate, forgetting that their only successes were a poor copy of Mac OS they called Windows, and Office which the main parts were actually created for the original Mac, Word and Excel.  Posner is clearly focused on sharing Apples tech with whoever wants to use it to give consumers access to it.  They have access to it.  They buy an Apple product.  Period!  

post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Or not.
I didn't know Apple was suing an operating system or vice-versa...

ALL of these patent suits are clearly aimed at Android, via the handset makers.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #22 of 48

And allowing infringement cannot possibly have "catastrophic effects" on the patent holder? Oh right, Apple is the giant in this case and Moto is the underdog - so Apple can take the hits.

 

What a complicated system we have - free market? sure but only if you don't step on the toes of anyone who has good lobbyists or lawyers.

 

It seems to me that the concept of the Free Market is like the model of the Solar System as described by Copernicus - neat and orderly - whereas the reality of the situation is far more intricate and compacted.  

post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The entire purpose of patents is to provide an exclusivity to the inventor.

Patents confer a right of intellectual property ownership and the ability of an inventor to be fairly compensated. But exclusivity is too much of a stretch in all cases, therefore FRAND, for instance.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #24 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

Patents confer a right of intellectual property ownership and the ability of an inventor to be fairly compensated. But exclusivity is too much of a stretch in all cases, therefore FRAND, for instance.

You don't understand patents or FRAND.

FRAND is a VOLUNTARY program where a patent older who has the exclusive rights to their invention chooses to allow others to license it. But, ultimately, it is based on the premise that the patent holder has the exclusive right to decide what to do with their invention.
"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 #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Remember when Posner supposedly "dismissed" this very case just two weeks ago, but added the disclaimer that his decision "wasn't final"? People all over were saying he can't just throw out the case and that he would be appealed. Well, he allowed the case to continue which I think he was planning all along.

I don't see this as any different. I think he's getting sick of both sides and wants to get down to settling this and is using some harsh words to get everyone to "hurry up". Suggesting Apple should license to Motorola doesn't mean that he's going to try and force Apple to license (which he couldn't legally do anyway, IMO). He's making a strong suggestion that the two sides should sit down and maybe come up with some possible solutions, one of which may be licensing.

And Posner saying an injunction could have "catastrophic effects" doesn't mean he wouldn't consider it. For example, if Motorola was being unreasonable to an Apple offer, then Posner could say "well, we gave you a viable option so now it's come down to an injunction". Or he could be suggesting to Motorola to "come up with a solution of your own because what you're facing is catastrophic".

I think people shouldn't take his statements to mean he's already decided how thing's should go - I think he just likes to stir the pot.

And that's an extremely unprofessional position for him to be in. His job is to interpret the law. Stirring the pot is NOT his job.

Any attempt to coerce companies into a settlement which is unfavorable to one side (such as, for example, suggesting to Apple that he might not award an injunction so they'd better settle) could easily be grounds for an appeal. Judges are supposed to remain completely neutral and not play silly games.
"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 #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And that's an extremely unprofessional position for him to be in. His job is to interpret the law. Stirring the pot is NOT his job.
Any attempt to coerce companies into a settlement which is unfavorable to one side (such as, for example, suggesting to Apple that he might not award an injunction so they'd better settle) could easily be grounds for an appeal. Judges are supposed to remain completely neutral and not play silly games.

Your personal animus toward Judge Posner is becoming increasingly clear. Be careful about accusations of bias unless you wish to be painted with the same brush.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #27 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I don't see this as any different. I think he's getting sick of both sides and wants to get down to settling this and is using some harsh words to get everyone to "hurry up". Suggesting Apple should license to Motorola doesn't mean that he's going to try and force Apple to license (which he couldn't legally do anyway, IMO). He's making a strong suggestion that the two sides should sit down and maybe come up with some possible solutions, one of which may be licensing.

There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.

 

"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases. It's been in the news fairly recently with both India and China announcing their intent to make greater use of it. Personally I would not be shocked to see it ordered in some upcoming US mobile patent case if some of these fairly broad/vague patents continue to be used as concrete walls to restrict competition rather than operating as gates. Whether it would hold up with SCOTUS is a great question that I hope would get answered someday soon.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 48

Where's the "catastrophe"?

 

Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer.

 

So where's the "catastrophe"?

 

How does the potential for Moto to be even *more* lousy in what they do "hurt" the consumer. Moto dies, another company steps in to pick up the slack. Company A (doesn't matter what they invented 40 years ago) sh*ts the bed. No problem. Someone hungrier and more innovative will take their place. Company B will take a crack at it. 

 

What is this, a BAILOUT??

 

Motorola did this to themselves. That's really the bottom line. And if you *really* want to point the finger, point it at Google. They've been taking advantage of the company, wielding it as a patent-sword, while apparently doing nothing to help Moto's market position. 

 

 

post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 They've been taking advantage of the company, wielding it as a patent-sword, while apparently doing nothing to help Moto's market position. 

 

 

Since they've only owned Moto for a month, I think giving them a little more time to work on Moto's market position would be fair. ;)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Since they've only owned Moto for a month, I think giving them a little more time to work on Moto's market position would be fair. ;)

 

Fair enough.  ;)

post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

If Moto wins they can sue for damages. Heck in Germany if you want an injunction you have to post a bond that is decided by the courts and goes to the other side if thy win. Not a bad idea to have in the US

Yes that's true but its like suing for the lost of a limb, no amount of money will make you whole again. It would hurt Motorola immediately and for years to come.
"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 #32 of 48

Ah the wisdom of the internet... So Judge Posner has studied the law for half if not more of his life, but you people know more than he does? He's probably forgotten more than any of you will ever know in your lifetime!

Posner's argument seems to be that not all patent violation carry the same weight. Apple or Motorola for that matter can't even come up with a reasonable estimation of the damage inflicted to them by the other party violating their patents. If Apple or Motorola can't show how they were harmed then how can they call for a ban on a product? You may disagree with that assertion, but to call him "senile" or biased" is just plain idiotic! If you have a better legal argument, then by all means do share.

post #33 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiroger View Post

Ah the wisdom of the internet... So Judge Posner has studied the law for half if not more of his life, but you people know more than he does? He's probably forgotten more than any of you will ever know in your lifetime!

Posner's argument seems to be that not all patent violation carry the same weight. Apple or Motorola for that matter can't even come up with a reasonable estimation of the damage inflicted to them by the other party violating their patents. If Apple or Motorola can't show how they were harmed then how can they call for a ban on a product? You may disagree with that assertion, but to call him "senile" or biased" is just plain idiotic! If you have a better legal argument, then by all means do share.

Posner is asking parties to demonstrate what they naturally wouldn't be able to demonstrate anyway at this juncture. The *real* issue is the harm that could result down the road. Posner is being asked to think in the future, and he doesn't enjoy doing that because that would mean speculation beyond the facts at issue, which would *really* mean speculation *based on* the facts currently at issue, but he'd still like to avoid that, no matter how reasonable we make it sound. That sort of speculation or forecasting-out is difficult to do, judges usually aren't to thrilled about having to do that, and it's a very risky thing to do in terms of setting precedent. It's easy to make mistakes in such a venture, and judges would like to avoid that sort of mess, especially if their name might be tied to extra-curricular and extra-ordinary "legal adventuring" gone wrong. 

post #34 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

Your personal animus toward Judge Posner is becoming increasingly clear. Be careful about accusations of bias unless you wish to be painted with the same brush.

What 'personal animus'? There's no such thing.

It is clear, however, that he has overstepped the bounds if he is going to try to force Apple to license Motorola. Furthermore, someone else said that he was 'stirring the pot' and I pointed out that it's not the judge's job to stir the pot.

So what makes you imagine 'personal animus'?
"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 #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.

 

"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases.

 

But, since this case isn't remotely analogous to those situations, talk of compulsory licensing is absurd. But then, you know that.

 

Pretty sad that your pay master, Google, is so pathetic that they have you pushing that position. But, it's not surprising, given Google's history of complete disregard of others (although not their own) IP.

post #36 of 48

I'm quite certain that Judge Posner, with 50 years of legal under his belt and numerous cited opinions and writings, is more aware of what he can and cannot do from the bench than any random internet guy on a user forum. We're all just posting opinions, most of them unprofessional, so nothing to take too seriously.

 

If Apple's counsel feels that Judge Posner has overstepped I've no doubt they'll mention it in a studied legal argument.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ytseman3 View Post

Here's a simple idea judge.  Make Motorola and all the other iPhone copy cats pay out the ass.  That will promote.... wait for it..... THEIR OWN INNOVATIONS!!!!  Why is it ok for these other companies to copy Apples hard work and research??  Why should they get a free ride?  Oh poor Motorola will be devastated if the ruling is in Apple's favor, well maybe they should have thought about that before they turned on their photo copiers and blatantly ripped off someone else's ideas and innovations.

 

 

 

It has not yet been proven that Motorola is infringing.  The relative benefits and burden need to be considered by any judge deciding upon this sort of an injunction request.

post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

 

Apple vs Android worldwide has absolutely no bearing on the facts being placed before him and shows that he is not being impartial in reaching decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

Judicial economy is always a factor when judges make decisions on procedural matters.  Piecemeal litigation is discouraged.  If there  is a procedure which will decide things once and for all, in general, it is seen as preferable.

post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

So you believe that his view that because it would be better for customers buying Motorola phones that Apple should be forced to license technology they created to differentiate their products and patented to protect to their competitors. 

 

 

 

I have seen no firm evidence that this is "his view".

post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.

 

"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases. It's been in the news fairly recently with both India and China announcing their intent to make greater use of it. Personally I would not be shocked to see it ordered in some upcoming US mobile patent case if some of these fairly broad/vague patents continue to be used as concrete walls to restrict competition rather than operating as gates. Whether it would hold up with SCOTUS is a great question that I hope would get answered someday soon.

 

 

Compulsory licensing is sometimes included  as an ingredient in  Patent Reform.  But it would take new legislation.  No judge has the ability to write new legislation.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple injunction against Motorola phones would be 'catastrophic,' judge says