or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's patent case against Motorola dismissed 'with prejudice'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's patent case against Motorola dismissed 'with prejudice'

post #1 of 76
Thread Starter 
A U.S. court judge on Friday dismissed Apple's smartphone patent claims against Motorola after holding a rehearing on Wednesday, possibly putting an end to the nearly two-year conflict.

Judge Richard Posner sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Apple's patent suit against Motorola "with prejudice," meaning that the assertions can't be reargued in front of that particular court, after giving the iPhone maker a second chance at an injunction earlier this week.

The judge, who has been an outspoken critic of Apple's court tactics, temporarily canceled Apple's trial in early June citing lack of injury but decided to rehear the case two weeks later. During the second hearing Apple once again argued for injunctive relief against Motorola's alleged infringement on four patents regarding heuristics, UI elements and wireless technology. The court was unimpressed with both the assertions as well as Apple's injunction request that asked the Droid maker to switch to its own solution within three months.

According to court documents, Judge Posner recommended that Apple license the technology to Motorola instead seeking an injunction which would be "catastrophic" and harmful to consumers. He also noted that merely issuing an injunction wouldn't necessarily stop Apple from reasserting the same claims when Motorola switched to another solution three months later.

On Apple's claims that it had been harmed by Motorola's actions, Judge Posner said that the Cupertino-based company was attempting to leverage precedent set in a 2010 court case involving Microsoft. The presiding judge in that case stated that ?a small company was practicing its patent, onlyto suffer a loss of market share, brand recognition, and customergoodwill as the result of the defendant?s infringing acts. Suchlosses may frequently defy attempts at valuation, particularlywhen the infringing acts significantly change the relevant mar-ket, as occurred here.? To this Judge Posner said, "Apple is not a ?small company?; its market capitalization exceeds that of Google and Microsoft combined. To suggest that it has suffered loss of market share, brand recognition, or customer goodwill as a result of Motorola?s alleged infringement of the patent claims still in play in this caseis wild conjecture."



Judge Posner said that the only reasonable outcome to the case is dismissal, both of Apple's and Motorola's claims, arguing that the case should not be considered moot as the dismissal itself can be appealed. He explains that "even if no appeal were planned, the case would not be moot, because a failure of proof, whether with respect to liability or to remedy, while itends a case does not make the case moot. A dismissal for moot-ness ordinarily (though with exceptions, for example because of voluntary cessation by the defendant of his alleged misconduct, or because the case is capable of repetition but evades review) is without prejudice."

"It would be ridiculous to dismiss a suit for failure to prove damages and allow the plaintiff to refile the suit so that he could have a second chance to prove damages," Judge Posner said. "This case is therefore dismissed with prejudice; a separate order to that effect is being entered today."

The ruling wraps up at least one chapter of the Apple v. Motorola saga that began when the Droid maker filed a complaint with the ITC in 2010 only to be hit shortly after with the Apple countersuit dismissed today. Both parties have the option to appeal the dismissal to a higher court but no official plans to do so have been announced.
post #2 of 76

For him to dismiss the case is just asking for an appeal to be filed. Apple isn't likely to let Moto go on infringing on their patents. THey are going to want it stopped even if they are told that they can't prove any actual damages so they get nothing for previous infringement outside of perhaps a license fee that the court might insist they decide the amount. They might also order that if Moto is caught infringing again there will be damages, perhaps preset by the court. 

post #3 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

For him to dismiss the case is just asking for an appeal to be filed. Apple isn't likely to let Moto go on infringing on their patents. THey are going to want it stopped even if they are told that they can't prove any actual damages so they get nothing for previous infringement outside of perhaps a license fee that the court might insist they decide the amount. They might also order that if Moto is caught infringing again there will be damages, perhaps preset by the court. 

Exactly. This one goes to the appeals court and is likely to be overturned.

The way that the case was handled clearly shows abuse of judicial discretion. Furthermore, the entire basis for dismissal is questionable. Specfiically:

1. Posner pushed Apple to license the technology to Motorola. This is, of course, not something that he has the legal authority to do other than a very serious matter with serious public policy implications. The fact that Microsoft claims that they could work around the patents suggests that there are no such implications. More importantly, by encouraging Apple to license to Motorola, he is acknowledging the validity of the patents.

2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument.

Furthermore, his argument that Apple can't be harmed because it's bigger than Google and Microsoft is nonsensical. Of course Apple can be harmed. It might not be fatal, but there's nothing that says injunctions can only be issued if the applicant is in danger of extinction.

This will be overturned before the end of the summer.
"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 76

Posner is a respected judge. I doubt that an appeal will be successful. My guess is that both sides just need to move on with respect to this particular case. It's over. There are plenty of other disputes to resolve.

post #5 of 76

Likely to be overturned?  

 

Time will tell, but currently little evidence of this being likely.

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 #6 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

Posner is a respected judge. I doubt that an appeal will be successful. My guess is that both sides just need to move on with respect to this particular case. It's over. There are plenty of other disputes to resolve.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

Likely to be overturned?  

 

Time will tell, but currently little evidence of this being likely.

 

The fact he pushed Apple to license the patent tacitly indicates he believes there was a violation.  Dismissing the case in view of that is a contradiction.  He is as likely as not to get the case remainded for a re-hearing.  Or he may just get plain overruled.  There isn't much wiggle room.

.
Reply
.
Reply
post #7 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

More importantly, by encouraging Apple to license to Motorola, he is acknowledging the validity of the patents.
2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument.
I seem to recall Tim Cook telling Walt Mossberg that the only patents Apple violated were the ones that should be labeled as standard-essential patents and therefore fall under FRAND licensing but have not been because the patent system is broken. I don't know if that is what the judge was getting at but I don't see enough info here to rule it out (and I'm certainly not going to read his entire opinion and order).

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #8 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Exactly. This one goes to the appeals court and is likely to be overturned.
The way that the case was handled clearly shows abuse of judicial discretion. Furthermore, the entire basis for dismissal is questionable. Specfiically:
1. Posner pushed Apple to license the technology to Motorola. This is, of course, not something that he has the legal authority to do other than a very serious matter with serious public policy implications. The fact that Microsoft claims that they could work around the patents suggests that there are no such implications. More importantly, by encouraging Apple to license to Motorola, he is acknowledging the validity of the patents.
2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument.
Furthermore, his argument that Apple can't be harmed because it's bigger than Google and Microsoft is nonsensical. Of course Apple can be harmed. It might not be fatal, but there's nothing that says injunctions can only be issued if the applicant is in danger of extinction.
This will be overturned before the end of the summer.

 

1. Judge Posner cites Federal Circuit law for imposing an ongoing royalty (slip op. at 26). Did he get that wrong?

2. I don’t recall validity being an issue. Rather, neither party could prove entitlement to damages or an injunction (even assuming infringement). You also misapprehend his discussion of i4i v. Microsoft; he distinguished it from the present facts and concluded that Apple was not able to show that the case applied or demonstrate similar harms (the so-called “wild conjecture”). And I assume you were exaggerating, but the Federal Circuit doesn’t act that fast.
post #9 of 76
Another black eye for Mr Sewell - perhaps they should let him go now before they start tangling with the DOJ over the e-book price fixing case.
post #10 of 76

beginning of the end of Jobs' era litigation

Cook is too smart to let these kinds of lawsuits go any further than they have.

Cook will choose to litigate those that are meaningful.

Posner's reference to apple's total size etcetera is the new basis by which in fact claims need to be decided by apple if they are worth it to litigate: apple will need to show a great amount of actual damage before it will win many more lawsuits like this.

Being  # 1, being the biggest, does matter.

Go after google in a different way.

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

Another black eye for Mr Sewell - perhaps they should let him go now before they start tangling with the DOJ over the e-book price fixing case.

Agree with you that the chief counsel or whatever you called him have to go. I don't think he is that good in court matters and or his perception of matters important in winning a case is certainly lacking.
post #12 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

Posner is a respected judge. I doubt that an appeal will be successful. My guess is that both sides just need to move on with respect to this particular case. It's over. There are plenty of other disputes to resolve.

I disagree that this is over -- Apple still has the chance to have it overturned by a higher court and hopefully moved out of Posner's grubby hands, I gotta wonder what his motivation (i.e., prejudice) is with Apple since he requested this case only to spend time "schooling" the attorneys involved and then dumping on it with prejudice.
post #13 of 76

I think it's a victory for common sense. Fair play to him.

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


Agree with you that the chief counsel or whatever you called him have to go. I don't think he is that good in court matters and or his perception of matters important in winning a case is certainly lacking.

 

If we assume he wouldn't be working for Apple unless he was competent, then it follows he is probably doing his best with the material available to him.

 

It is not his fault if the material he has to work with is of poor quality.  With these continual failures in Apple's legal battles, it seems clear Apple is waging a war in which they are shooting blanks.  Apple might think everyone else has copied them, but obviously the other companies have been as careful at avoiding infringing Apples patents as Apple has been to avoid their's - hence the poor quality of what Sewell has to work with.

 

Android and competing smartphones are not going away via the courts, that is very clear by now.

post #15 of 76

A frivolous patent lawsuit given the boot with prejudice: a wise judgement and a good news.

post #16 of 76

It isn't all bad news for Apple, given that Motorola first sued Apple and Apple retaliated by countersuing Motorola, so you could argue that this is a (sort of) victory for Apple.

 

The only prejudice I see here has come from Posner, no matter how well or highly he is regarded. He comes across as very arrogant and anti-Apple.

post #17 of 76

This decision is a real blow to IP and by extension to every innovative company's R & D.  The courts are allowing copycat manufacturers to prosper, denying relief and then saying "live with it."  In the context of the fast pace of product development, infringing companies can start with "borrowed science," establish brand and market, and then come forward with Gen 2 & 3 products with "work arounds."  

post #18 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

1. Judge Posner cites Federal Circuit law for imposing an ongoing royalty (slip op. at 26). Did he get that wrong?

Actually, he did.

First, he considered an ongoing royalty, but didn't order one. So he acknowledged that Motorola infringed, but didn't do a darned thing about it. Second, ongoing royalty is only appropriate when an injunction causes irreparable harm to the public or serious harm to the infringer over a trivial issue. Apple did not request an immediate injunction. They requested an injunction which took effect after 4 months, giving Motorola time to fix the infringement (since Motorola stated that it was a trivial matter that could easily be fixed).

So, again, Posner has contradicted himself. On one hand, by arguing for an ongoing royalty, he is stating that the infringement is over a minor matter which is only a small component of the phone. OTOH, he dismisses Apple's suggestion that Motorola be given 4 months to fix the problem out of hand. So what is it? Is it a minor, easily remedied problem or is it instrumental to the device and can't be fixed?

Then, of course, is the issue where he argues for ongoing royalty in lieu of injunction, but doesn't order any ongoing royalty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

2. I don’t recall validity being an issue. Rather, neither party could prove entitlement to damages or an injunction (even assuming infringement). You also misapprehend his discussion of i4i v. Microsoft; he distinguished it from the present facts and concluded that Apple was not able to show that the case applied or demonstrate similar harms (the so-called “wild conjecture”). And I assume you were exaggerating, but the Federal Circuit doesn’t act that fast.

Sure it does. Look at how quickly they overturned Koh's opinion.
"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 #19 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFHJr View Post

This decision is a real blow to IP and by extension to every innovative company's R & D.  The courts are allowing copycat manufacturers to prosper, denying relief and then saying "live with it."  In the context of the fast pace of product development, infringing companies can start with "borrowed science," establish brand and market, and then come forward with Gen 2 & 3 products with "work arounds."  

Yep. It's a scary decision.

1. Posner admitted infringement.
2. The patent's validity was not questioned.
3. Posner refused to even consider an injunction which is clearly allowed by law - even an injunction which gave Motorola more than enough time to fix the problem.
4. Posner argued for ongoing royalties - and then refused to order them.
5. Posner simply threw the whole matter out and sent the message that he was not interested in allowing big, rich companies to protect their intellectual property.

If this doesn't get overturned, he just single-handedly eliminated the US patent system.
"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 #20 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Exactly. This one goes to the appeals court and is likely to be overturned.

 

Oh yea? Why? Because you're not happy with the outcome?: All things point to it being very unlikely, especially given Posner's turnover rate (extremely low)

 

 

 

Quote:
The way that the case was handled clearly shows abuse of judicial discretion. Furthermore, the entire basis for dismissal is questionable. Specfiically:
1. Posner pushed Apple to license the technology to Motorola. This is, of course, not something that he has the legal authority to do other than a very serious matter with serious public policy implications. The fact that Microsoft claims that they could work around the patents suggests that there are no such implications. More importantly, by encouraging Apple to license to Motorola, he is acknowledging the validity of the patents.
2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument.
Furthermore, his argument that Apple can't be harmed because it's bigger than Google and Microsoft is nonsensical. Of course Apple can be harmed. It might not be fatal, but there's nothing that says injunctions can only be issued if the applicant is in danger of extinction.
.

Utter nonsense, call a waambulance. 

 

 

 

Quote:
This will be overturned before the end of the summer

LOL, sure. That's some RDF you've got going there, what kind of smokes are available inside?

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #21 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Actually, he did.

 

Oh so you're now a judge and know more than one most respected judges in the country. Stop. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #22 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sure it does. Look at how quickly they overturned Koh's opinion.

For clarity, the appeals court didn't entirely overturn Koh's opinion in the Apple/Samsung preliminary injunction hearing. They mostly affirmed her decision, agreeing with her reasoning with regard to Samsung's smartphones, sending only the Galaxy Tab back for reconsideration. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Actually, he did.
First, he considered an ongoing royalty, but didn't order one. So he acknowledged that Motorola infringed, but didn't do a darned thing about it. Second, ongoing royalty is only appropriate when an injunction causes irreparable harm to the public or serious harm to the infringer over a trivial issue. Apple did not request an immediate injunction. They requested an injunction which took effect after 4 months, giving Motorola time to fix the infringement (since Motorola stated that it was a trivial matter that could easily be fixed).
So, again, Posner has contradicted himself. On one hand, by arguing for an ongoing royalty, he is stating that the infringement is over a minor matter which is only a small component of the phone. OTOH, he dismisses Apple's suggestion that Motorola be given 4 months to fix the problem out of hand. So what is it? Is it a minor, easily remedied problem or is it instrumental to the device and can't be fixed?
Then, of course, is the issue where he argues for ongoing royalty in lieu of injunction, but doesn't order any ongoing royalty.
Sure it does. Look at how quickly they overturned Koh's opinion.

 

While long I really think you need to read the entire opinion and order, as I have just done, because you are taking grossly extrapolated points by AI and trying to make arguments that already have been answered and explained by the judge. You're also missing the point, or rather the judge's, entirely.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #24 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

 

Oh so you're now a judge and know more than one most respected judges in the country. Stop. 

 

 

Given that the original poster does not have a law degree, not even one from the worst, crappiest law school in the entire country, and Posner graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, somehow I think that I'll believe Posner.

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



2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument.
 

 

 

He never "admitted" anything about the patents.  However, he said that even IF the patents are valid, and even IF the patents were infringed, Apple failed to show any damages.  Did you read his opinion?  Did you understand it?

 

Here's where he discusses what you said above:

 

 

 

Quote:
Any intimation that proof of infringement is alone enough 
to warrant a remedial order (as when Dow posits an “obligation 
to award some amount of damages” if infringement is proved) 
was scotched by the Supreme Court in  eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391–92 (2006). And with specific 
reference to calculating a royalty,  Dow itself instructs district 
courts not pull the royalty out of a hat but instead “to consider 
the so-called  Georgia-Pacific factors in detail, and award such No. 1:11-cv-08540                                                                          13 
reasonable royalties as the record evidence will support.” 341 
F.3d at 1382 (citation omitted); see also Lucent Technologies, Inc. 
v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Parental Guide of 
Texas, Inc. v. Thomson, Inc., 446 F.3d 1265, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 

 
Would  you say that the Supreme Court was wrong?  Did you read that decision?>
post #26 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

 

While long I really think you need to read the entire opinion and order, as I have just done, because you are taking grossly extrapolated points by AI and trying to make arguments that already have been answered and explained by the judge. You're also missing the point, or rather the judge's, entirely.

 

 

The point is that Apple could prove no damages, even IF they could prove that their patents are valid, and even IF they could prove that their patents had been infringed.

 

 

 

Quote:
Apple has not presented admissible evidence that the GeorgiaPacific factors support its damages claim.
post #27 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by niji View Post

Cook is too smart to let these kinds of lawsuits go any further than they have.
Cook will choose to litigate those that are meaningful.

And the lawsuits currently happening ARE meaningful.
Quote:
apple will need to show a great amount of actual damage before it will win many more lawsuits like this.

No, they only have to show damage.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #28 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

 

Oh so you're now a judge and know more than one most respected judges in the country. Stop. 

 

I think it's time to invoke Godwin's Law, but with a little twist. 

 

Nearly everyone sitting at the table during the Wannsee Conference on 20th January 1942 was a distinguished expert in their field. Nearly all held the title of "Doctor" (the European variant of that designation at the time), mostly in the field of law. 

Wilhelm Stuckart, for example, was a distinguished lawyer and judge, who held a doctorate in his field. He was noted for his brilliance in the area of public administration. As a member of the NSDAP, and in light of the sociopolitical setting in which

he operated, his contribution to the Nuremberg Laws was enlightened, particularly given the general aims of the Nazi regime. Stuckart was, arguably, a moderate who by anyone's estimation seemed out of place at that meeting. He wasn't the only one, though.  

 

Yet, he too, along with the other respected, well-credientialed experts present at that meeting, in the span of but a few hours endorsed officially (but off the record, as required by Heydrich) the Nazi plan for genocide, knowing full well what that meant. This is part of the "banality of evil" that Hannah Arendt spoke about. We're not just talking about mistaken legal rulings or short-sighted judgments that are easily actionable via the appellate process. This is the wholesale transferral of valuable expertise to the service of evil.

 

Of course, Posner is *not* a high-ranking Nazi official, nor any sort of participant in a fascist regime. It would be nothing short of ridiculous to make such a claim. He is by all accounts an enlightened (at least professionally) servant of a democratic state, and again, by all accounts a man of upstanding moral character, who would very likely fight injustice even if it weren't his occupation. Probably a good friend and wonderful family-man as well. 

 

But the same thing could have been said of any number of well-credentialed, well-meaning "experts" who became a part of the most destructive political regime of our time. 

 

So let's respect expertise. But let's not be blinded by it. 

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

 
No, they only have to show damage.

 

 

They failed here  to  do  so.  That is the entire point of the dismissal.

post #30 of 76
The judge's "point" is that he rejects the tetimony of Apple's expert witness (the one that he allowed, not the ones that he barred) as having given an insufficiently detailed definition of the amount of the proposed damages, and therefore dismisses the case "with prejudice", disallowing a retrial and any attempt to further clarify the exact amount of damages. He refuses to specifically acknowledge that infringements did occur, stating, in effct, that even if they did the lack of specificity would doom the trial.

"Heavy handed" would be an understatement of the essence of his judgement.
post #31 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

The judge's "point" is that he rejects the tetimony of Apple's expert witness (the one that he allowed, not the ones that he barred) as having given an insufficiently detailed definition of the amount of the proposed damages, and therefore dismisses the case "with prejudice", disallowing a retrial and any attempt to further clarify the exact amount of damages. He refuses to specifically acknowledge that infringements did occur, stating, in effct, that even if they did the lack of specificity would doom the trial.
"Heavy handed" would be an understatement of the essence of his judgement.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by heavy-handed.  Can you be more specific?

 

Do you mean that his decision was not well-reasoned?

post #32 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


They failed here  to  do  so.  That is the entire point of the dismissal.

They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.

Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
"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 #33 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip View Post

It isn't all bad news for Apple, given that Motorola first sued Apple and Apple retaliated by countersuing Motorola, so you could argue that this is a (sort of) victory for Apple.

 

The only prejudice I see here has come from Posner, no matter how well or highly he is regarded. He comes across as very arrogant and anti-Apple.

 

His job is to judge according to the law.  Not to be "pro" or "anti" anything.  Just because he ruled against Apple, it does not mean he's anti-Apple.  He's simply provided a legal judgement that doesn't suit Apple.

 

Get over it.

post #34 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

So let's respect expertise. But let's not be blinded by it. 

 

Who's being blind when people tarnish the judge's reputation and question his expertise based on a ruling they don't like rather than providing actual legal counter-arguments? 

 

You have people here, who know scant little about law, arguing the judge is wrong, simply because he ruled against Apple.

 

Tell me, had he ruled the other way, how many here would be crowing about how this well respected judge ruled for Apple?  Would you still be saying that people should only "respect" his expertise and not be "blinded by it"?

 

For the most part, I agree with you line.  But, I find it incredible that people think that being an Apple fan makes them better qualified to provide legal opinions than a Harvard trained Federal Circuit judge with decades of experience.  I wonder how many of these folks would over rule the engineer or architect who designed their houses, since being an Apple fan obviously makes you an expert on good design?

post #35 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.

 

If there's merit to your argument, it'll come out in the appeal.


That said, Posner has a pretty good record with his rulings.  So good luck with that.

post #36 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

Posner is a respected judge.

That doesn't mean he's infallible or wasn't in over his head on this case (my opinion).

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


They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.

 

 

They failed in the opinion of the judge.  And that is the only failure that matters.

post #38 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.

 

This isn't the OJ trail, his is the only one that matters.

 

 

Quote:
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.

That's quite a case of denial you've got there, and it's still obvious you haven't read the decision. The judge rejected it because it didn't meet the legal qualifications for assessing damages. The same went for Motorola by the way. This has been something he's asked for very publicly numerous times. Everything Posner said is explained and documented with references. The only demonstration of bias here is yours. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #39 of 76

Yeah, I don't get it. To say that simply because you are a large company with the majority of marketshare means that you can take the hit just seems ridiculous. As much as I don't want a monopoly, if the technology is patented and designed by someone else, credit is due where it has been earned. Apple has obviously lost marketshare in the smartphone segment by and large due to Android rip-offs who couldn't think up their own metaphors for a touch-based UI. If you liken the iPhone's advent to that of automobiles it would be like saying that even though Apple designed and patented 300 technologies therein and took a lion's share of the market due to the usefulness and sharp design that somehow horse and buggy salesmen should get to copy it simply because it would otherwise be bad for their business. It's not a perfect analogy, but basically without copying Apple's ideas the companies (and Google) would have had to do their own R&D and be left to selling horses and buggies until they got a truly original product. so much for the free market. As much as I don't care for the metaphor used in mobile Windows OS I can respect the fact that they took a novel approach to the touch-based OS. Granted, it reminds me of some traffic sign designer who had a hand in the tile development but at least it's not a hack job of copy and paste as was the case with Android.

post #40 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

 

Who's being blind when people tarnish the judge's reputation and question his expertise based on a ruling they don't like rather than providing actual legal counter-arguments? 

 

You have people here, who know scant little about law, arguing the judge is wrong, simply because he ruled against Apple.

 

Tell me, had he ruled the other way, how many here would be crowing about how this well respected judge ruled for Apple?  Would you still be saying that people should only "respect" his expertise and not be "blinded by it"?

 

For the most part, I agree with you line.  But, I find it incredible that people think that being an Apple fan makes them better qualified to provide legal opinions than a Harvard trained Federal Circuit judge with decades of experience.  I wonder how many of these folks would over rule the engineer or architect who designed their houses, since being an Apple fan obviously makes you an expert on good design?

 

I have no disagreement with what you're saying, though I doubt opinions on an Apple fansite will have any effect on the judge's reputation. Opinions from his own peers will, but not ours. 

 

The point is, the judge made a ruling and the ball is in Apple's court. To be fair, and to give your point even more credence, I'd be more interested in paying attention to Apple's next move rather than questioning the judge's decision.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's patent case against Motorola dismissed 'with prejudice'