Google calls Apple 'unwilling licensee' in bid for injunction over FRAND patent violations - Page 2

Depends on what your desired point is, and how shallow it is.

Was Motorola first to file? Yes. Did Motorola initiate these patent wars? No.

It's as if the US had found out that the Japanese attack carriers were about to launch on Hawaii, and preemptively got to them first. The Japanese would still have been the instigators of the attack.

^ Are you actually claiming these patent wars were started by Apple? 

Why does everything you post have to sound so fucking smarmy? It would be great if you could simply be direct and accurate without trying to weasel your way into blaming Apple for everything. And you wonder why you sound like paid shill...

To each their own but I much prefer the quick kill.

JR, as I predicted you've gone on to change the subject.

 

In the case heard by Judge Posner in US District court, the subject of the thread, Apple sued first just as I said. FACT. Motorola then countersued just as I said. FACT. Both cases were combined into one and heard by Judge Posner just as I said, FACT. Both Apple and Motorola had their competing IP claims dismissed just as I said. FACT. Both were admonished by the same court just as I said. FACT. I claimed nothing else.

 

You felt the need to respond and told me I wasn't exactly right, that Motorola lost and Apple won. Your claim was wrong. That you'd like to start a new discussion about who fired the first volley back in the day doesn't change the case heard by Judge Posner we were discussing. To refresh your memory this is where you started:

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156501/google-calls-apple-unwilling-licensee-in-bid-for-injunction-over-frand-patent-violations#post_2294788

 

In summation here's where you said I was wrong:

JR: "You (GG) implied that Apple and Google both were equally slapped by the judge, but that's not the case."

You're wrong. Both received lectures from Judge Pender. In at least Apple's case more than once.

 

JR: "Nor is it a draw."

You're wrong again. Both cases were dismissed without a trial, making it a draw.

JR: "Motorola sued. The judge rejected a bunch of claims, and eventually, Motorola lost. Apple won.

Wrong yet again. Apple sued. Moto sued too. Neither "lost" nor "won"...

...or both lost and won if you wish to look at it that way instead. Either way a draw.

 

JR: "It's not a draw when the plaintiff walks away with nothing and the defendant doesn't have to pay any damages."

They were both plaintiffs and both walked away with nothing

 

JR: "That's a pure win for the defendant".

They were both defendants too and so by your definition both "won" (tho I'd disagree).

JR: "And when you add in all the judge's specific comments about Google/Motorola regarding FRAND abuse, it was a sound smackdown for Google."

Google wasn't a party to the action. Both Moto and Apple got a "smackdown" by Judge Posner.

 

 

Now you've introduced another case altogether in the discussion, an administrative ITC action that I suppose you had hoped would disguise how wrong you were? Even that doesn't help make you any more correct. Fine to talk about it too if you want but it had nothing to do with the settlement of this case, nor anything you or I were originally debating.

 

So it's simple if you read what you wrote. You were wrong on several counts. I was right on each of them. You'd have been better off not replying in the first place.

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 4:30pm

I was being direct and accurate until you came back with a childish "everything else was irrelevant", which is not true at all unless you're being "fucking smarmy" yourself, trying to "weasel your way" into absolving Apple of any responsibility.

So my question to you is, why are you always so foul mouthed when caught in a mistake? It's like a poker tell. You instantly accuse the other person of exactly what you yourself are guilty of.

Of course. Haven't you noticed that KDarling sees every problem in the world as Apple's fault and all of Apple's competitors are angels sent by God, himself.

ROTLFMAO.

YOUR OWN FLIPPING LINK says that Motorola filed first in the case we're discussing.

As expected, you simply can't stand the truth.

1) No you weren't.

2) You added bullshit to what should have been a simple reply.

3) I don't like when people can't be direct nor honest, which includes you adding a shitload of unrelated crap to hide your mistake. Be a man! Own up to it.

4) Good try¡

I'm not going to hunt down the source but I'll ask: Was the original statement regarding Moto not suing first in this particular case or that Moto had never once initiated a lawsuit? It seems to me it should be pretty cut and dry.

You're choosing to misinterpret that link, which doesn't at all disagree with anything I wrote. Your mixing two entirely separate actions and venues, one administrative at the ITC and this one in a US District Court. Moto did not file first "in the case we were discussing" which was heard in the US District Court with Judge Posner, as you're well aware. . .

or should be if you really read the links.

 

You on the other hand are apparently going to try and avoid ownership of your numerous incorrect claims made. If you'd still insist on agreeing to disagree about who filed first (which you will) that still leaves another five incorrect statements you managed to make in one single post, noted again for you if you've forgotten in the past hour. 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156501/google-calls-apple-unwilling-licensee-in-bid-for-injunction-over-frand-patent-violations/40#post_2294938

 

Perhaps you'd like to re-assert those same points to prove how wrong I was? Of course you won't. You were wrong about each and every one of them. The truth and you appear to be estranged. 

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 4:28pm

It had to do with this case, filed in US District Court so yes it is cut and dried. There was never any prior discussion of any other actions in any other venues, nor should there have been any expected.

 

Nonetheless I expect JR to cling to it tighter than a warm blanket in January as it's his only opportunity left for any redemption at all. Each of his other five claims were already shown to be flawed.

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 3:29pm

Can you quote the original comment? I'm renting out the Moose Lodge in Juneau, Alaska for the last Thursday of June to vote on it.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/16/13 at 3:40pm

It's really quite simple. This thread is about the ITC case. GG cited a link which was specifically about this case and he said that it somehow proved something about this case.

The very last paragraph of the article that he cited says:
"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."

Note in particular the "countersuit dismissed today" part - which is a clear indication that they're talking about the case in the article he cited.

Now, he's trying to pretend that it's not relevant and has nothing to do with the case we're discussing.

So he was lying when he presented the link or he's lying now.

Yes sir. Here ya go:

 

 

 

Since the comments revolved around the Judge (Pender) it's obvious what case we were discussing.

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 3:44pm

I don't know. It sounds like I'll need to find myself a jury in Juneau, Alaska this Summer.

An ITC case??? Since when did Judge Posner preside over an ITC case? From the very first paragraph of this article:

 

"Google and Motorola on Thursday entered an initial filing with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals over the dismissal of a patent suit against Apple, which saw a circuit court judge toss arguments from both parties in 2011."

 

You've plainly outdone yourself JR, removing yourself so far from reality that no facts will be capable of pulling you back in. This thread was never anchored in an ITC case. It's been about Judge Pender and the US District Court, his comments to both parties and their appeals on his dismissals from the get-go.

 

Perhaps it's the words that confuse you. Here's a picture from the article that started this whole thread. See if you can find the ITC identified in it:

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 4:28pm

It's really simple:

1. This thread was about the ITC case.
2. You said that Apple lost.
3. I pointed out that Motorola filed first - and therefore they were the ones who lost.
4. You said that was incorrect and that Apple had filed first.
5. THE VERY ARTICLE YOU PRESENTED TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT said that Motorola is the one who filed.


So either you were lying when you claimed that the link you provided was relevant or you're lying now. Which is it?

The article you began your comments from the top of the thread never mentions the ITC. Judge Posner never mentions the ITC. The ITC is not mentioned in the appeal. No one in the thread mentions the ITC until you try to grasp for it midway thru and well after we started our debate. Yet you say it's always been the ITC case we've been discussing? then go on to say I claimed Apple lost?? Not very truthful JR.

 

You might want it to be about the ITC case, but then how would you rationalize this comment from you:

"And when you add in all the judge's specific comments about Google/Motorola regarding FRAND abuse, it was a sound smackdown for Google." Which judge were you referring to? Clearly not one at the ITC.

 

So in effect you're depending on the last paragraph of an AI article, where it guesses what prompted Apple's filing and calls it a countersuit, to bail you out for one of your six claims? That's not at all what the article was about! It's absolutely relevant since it was meant as only one piece of an effort to help you help you understand the flaw in your arguments, but certainly not as the sole factual evidence that Apple's first filing was a counterclaim. Nor does it help you with your other 5 flawed claims you continue to wish didn't happen.

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/22/apples_patent_case_against_motorola_dismissed_with_prejudice

One of my other links given at the same time plainly states who initiated the case heard by Judge Posner: It was Apple. You chose to ignore that one with facts (WSJ) for one that guesses at Apple's motivation and assumes it should be called a countersuit. (AI)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577453190197480550.html

 

So as to remove confusion here's a timeline with filing dates noted:

http://www.patentprogress.org/cases/apple-v-motorola-n-d-ill/

 

In summary:

" Apple initiated this lawsuit alleging that Motorola has infringed upon three of Apple’s Patents.  Motorola filed a Counterclaim alleging that Apple infringes upon six Motorola patents, and Apple expanded its allegation to include fifteen total patents.  The case was transferred from the Western District of Wisconsin to the Northern District of Illinois, where Judge Richard Posner took over the case while sitting in designation.  After months of motions practice by both parties, Judge Posner ordered both parties to submit reports on damages.  After receiving these reports, and hearing oral testimony, Judge Posner dismissed the case, concluding that neither party had presented sufficient evidence of damages to create a triable case or controversy, and that neither party had demonstrated why pecuniary damages are an inadequate remedy.  Both parties have appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the case now resides".

 

There's much more detail at the link if you choose to look at it.

 

So anyway, about those other five claims you made? Still rather not talk about them and try to keep the focus on just this one?

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156501/google-calls-apple-unwilling-licensee-in-bid-for-injunction-over-frand-patent-violations/40#post_2294938

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 5:26pm

OK, so it wasn't the ITC case.

That doesn't change anything. You cited an article in discussing the topic of this thread and claimed that it was relevant. That article showed that Motorola filed first.

So were you lying when you cited the article or are you lying now?

The link was relevant when I posted it and still relevant. That doesn't mean it's flawless. In the final paragraph it erroneously refers to Apple's filing in District Court as a counterclaim to an administrative action at the ITC. It's simply one link of several I offered you to assist you with your misunderstanding.  Unfortunately it took quite a while for some of the facts to register with you.

 

I've no idea how you rationalize the question of lying by association with an imperfect AI article. Perhaps it's a desperate attempt to show someone else is wrong too, not just you?

This thread stopped be entertaining a long time ago.

You can cancel the trial Soli. 

 

Phewww... No doubt I'm not the only one glad to see that finished.

Agreed.

Hey KD, answer the question. Do you think Apple is responsible for starting these patent wars? Tough to get a straight answer out of you.

 

Hardly, but that speaks worlds about your mindset.

 

Correcting someone's historical or technical or patent-reading mistakes, is NOT the same as being anti-Apple.  Unless that someone thinks they're Apple.

 

Ditto for correcting bogus Google personal information tirades.  Correcting those does not make all the people who spoke up, pro-Google.

 

I believe that people should make up their own minds...after getting to see all the information.  Guys like you seem to hate that idea, and prefer to shout down anyone else by engaging in slur campaigns.  

 

I'm also sure that you truly believe you're doing the right thing somehow, by doing that.  We all think we're doing the right thing.   That's exactly why there's no need for name calling.

Edited by KDarling - 3/16/13 at 7:47pm

Assuming you mean in smartphones, IMO Nokia actually fired the first salvos in 2009 by suing Apple. It took awhile before others like HTC, Moto and the rest got dragged into it. I'm sure there's probably some members here that might disagree with me on who started it.

Got it.

So the link which you considered so accurate and relevant that you had to trot it out is only accurate and relevant when you want it to be, but you can simply ignore the parts you don't like.

Figures.

 

It's really very simple. The companies who steal IP (or fail to re-negotiate existing contracts **cough** Motorola **cough**) are the ones who started it. Lawsuits are initiated by companies after other attempts to come to a settlement have failed.

 

However, there's a twist to this.

 

- Apple and Microsoft do not abuse patents.

- Google/Motorola and Samsung do abuse patents to seek injunctions with SEP's.

 

In this regard you can't say that Apple and Microsoft initiated the lawsuits against them by being the infringers since Google/Motorola and Samsung are abusing their SEP's to extort money from their competitors. Both Apple and Microsoft would have gladly settled and taken a license deal if the offer was reasonable. So in these cases, it's actually Google/Motorola and Samsung who are the instigators.

 

To sum up, all this legal action is basically the fault of Google/Motorola and Samsung, either through their infringing of IP or abuse of patents.

 

Clear enough for you now?

I still think Nokia started it, tho some of the the same reasons you've listed for pointing to others might apply.

 

Further, I expect a major announcement by Google before the year is out, one that may do more for putting the brakes on software IP litigation, and particularly from NPE's/PAE's (patent trolls as most of us know them), than anything Congress has been able to do. Some shareholders might initially protest, but I fully expect to see Google form a royalty-free and portfolio-wide IP pool, and including several companies as partners.

 

Yes, according to indications Google may, for all practical purposes, make their entire library of IP available royalty-free and licensed to those that wish to return the favor by contributing their own to the group. Those royalty-free licensing rights would still retained for group members even if the original holder later decides to sell/transfer any or even all of it. They would be immune to patent litigation based on any of that IP. forever, no matter who might have legal ownership sometime in the future.

 

Assuming it happens, and several professionals believe it will, it could be the single most effective effort yet made to curb the plethora of IP litigation drowning the mobile industry. I hope to see it become a reality. The millions to be made from royalties isn't worth more than the value of stopping IP suits before they happen and avoiding the legal and business costs IMO. 

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/17/13 at 8:50am

^ This isn't a fad. It's not like Nokia showed up to the ball in a blue dress and everyone decided to wear blue dresses next year. Individual companies launch lawsuits based on their own specific circumstances. You can't find a beginning and blame a single company.

 

 

And I know where you got that idea about Google licensing patents royalty free. It won't happen. This is from the website Google started to deal with patent trolls:

 

http://www.google.com/patents/licensing/index.html

 

I've made a few posts to their blog and the moderators have not approved any of them. I wonder why? Probably because I pointed out some very real problems with their position and they don't want any negative information to show up. Censoring comments of those who have legitimate concerns - how typical of Google.

 

There are numerous reasons why their suggestion will never fly:

 

- What about companies with 20,000 patents making a deal with a company that has 1,000 patents? Surely Google doesn't expect both companies to offer a royalty-free license to their entire portfolio (which 3 out of 4 of their possible agreements would require)? What a deal for the company with only 1,000 patents.

- What about two companies with 20,000 patents each? Seems reasonable until you dig a little deeper. If one company has patents related to manufacturing semiconductors, and when you buy those semiconductors the license is included, then what benefit are having those patents available to a company that isn't involved in semiconductors? There doesn't just have to be an equal number of patents, but they must be of equal value to each other. A company that makes laptops doesn't need all of Samsung's IP related to cell phones, wireless, semiconductors or how to make a fridge.

- Google says this is to battle patent trolls. But they don't give any suggestion as to how this would work in practice. Since patent troll don't manufacture goods they can't really be sued. What leverage does having access to a large pool of patents provide if that pool doesn't have a patent a troll owns? Your only defense would be having a similar patent such that a court might determine you didn't infringe the trolls patent since you have a license to another patent that does the same function.

- How are companies going to recover their enormous investment in IP if they give up the majority of their portfolio royalty-free?

- What about companies that don't sign up? This is useless if only certain companies take part and others don't.

 

Bottom line is Google steals IP and they feel like they have a right to do so. They have no respect whatsoever for others rights and this has been proven numerous times (like when they tried to digitize books, for example).

 

 

Google wants an easy way out of their patent troubles and are looking for a way to get free use of others IP. They are disguising this whole initiative as a method to battle trolls when it really has nothing to do with patent trolls.

 

 

Oh, and I guess other companies will get access to Google's search algorithms or IP related to how they target ads so well?

That would be my guess, at least if that's the field the partner is in. None of the 4 options would indicate otherwise would they? You read 'em just like I did.

 

As far as there being an uneven contribution in the number of patents, there could be very very few who could contribute a greater number of them than Google who holds more IP than your average tech company. If Google is willing to include theirs I don't see what the holdup would be for those holding far fewer. I think you're a little premature in dismissing the idea and the potential good it could bring with it.

 

Perhaps because it was a Google idea it's immediately worthy of dissing? I suspect that's your motivation. Twitter has already developed a similar defensive licensing policy tho on a much smaller scale than the one Google envisions. Are you as dismissive of Twitter's try and suggest everything should just continue as is, let the strong survive and the smaller entities get eaten alive and their IP purchased by or transferred to NPE's? 

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/17/13 at 11:24am

^ Google holds the most patents? Regardless of the actual number, most of them are outdated, useless or part of a standard.

 

People said Apple should be careful about suing Samsung or Motorola because of their huge patent pool. And what happened? They had to resort to abusing SEP's against Apple because they have little to no IP of any use to Apple. The number of patents means nothing if they are in an area that another company doesn't use or need. Which Samsung and Motorola have found out the hard way. I mentioned this already and you decided to ignore it - what to do when there's an imbalance in IP?

 

You "suspect my motivation" is because I dislike Google? No, my motivation comes from the fact I've been a software engineer for many years and I'm pro IP. Google has shown through their actions they have no respect for others IP. This is a FACT you can't ignore or twist around. I don't care what they "say" they're going to do - I'll base my opinion on what they HAVE ALREADY done.

Okay. so you dislike Google as a company just as I said. Whether your reasoning for it is "right" or not is neither fact nor fiction. It's an opinion tho, and certainly valid. ( by the way, you say you've made numerous comments about the Defensive License that Google won't publish, yet the webpages just launched this week?? You were quick I guess. Where is the comment section?)

 

As for whether Google holds IP with value how could you be so absolutely certain they do not based on a single Federal Court lawsuit filed by Motorola against Apple (dismissed without ruling) and an ongoing Microsoft suit that already earned a German injunction for MS (currently unenforceable while under appeal... in the US?). That's a far stretch with minimal evidence to back it with.  Add in the other 2000+ patents (or was it 3K +) Google already held before acquiring another 17,000 from Motorola, then add in that Google was awarded even more patents than Apple last year (including IP for both hardware and software innovations) and the reach you're making should become even more obvious. Since Google filed it's very first IP claim in company history within the last month I don't believe their portfolio has ever been tested has it?

 

As it is a company with the huge number and breadth of patents as Google (over 20,000) being willing to license all of them royalty-free may just be enough incentive for other IP holders both large and small to join in as a good first step to dealing with an increasing problem, tipping the scales for rational solutions rather than courtroom actions.

 

So I'm not ignoring anything you mentioned. On the other hand you're avoiding several of my points I encouraged you to comment on such as:

 

   -From what i can see every option shown for Google's Defensive Patent Portfolio shows that the entire portfolio is included, or minimally anything pertinent to the field-of-use. Are you reading something different? You imply search IP would not be part of it after reading the descriptions.

 

   -Twitter is already using a similar but smaller scale defensive strategy. What is your opinion of it? Is it too a waste of time and thus has no value?

 

   -NPE's are buying, or increasingly being given IP to monetize and enforce, even by the Nokias of tech, and includes patents that are standard-essential . I didn't see your suggestion for a more effective way of dealing with the "trolls", instead just dissing any effort by Google to deal with it. 

 

Any comments at all or is it just a Google-bash?

 

EDIT: for those not familiar with what we're discussing there's a description here:

http://www.google.com/patents/licensing/comparison/

 

a general discussion of Defensive Patent Licensing here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/04320119301/defensive-patent-license-solution-to-patent-problems-just-way-to-highlight-them.shtml

 

and one on Google efforts specifically here:

http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=bad46f51-b2c0-41a3-9ef8-0908315ade35

and here:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/google-starts-looking-for-allies-in-patent-self-help/

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/17/13 at 1:15pm

I agree. Google has NEVER shown any respect for anyone's IP but their own. They have years of history of violating others' IP - with some of the examples truly stupendous - like their first attempt at Google Books.

I'd bet just about anything that those would never be included. They'll set up this 'royalty free' scam to cover only telecommunications or something like that and will argue that search and advertising are not part of telecommunications.

Stupid me falling for GG yet again. I knew there was a reason I blocked you, and I was foolish enough to unblock some posts and get into a discussion with you.

 

But I see it's still the same. Never answering others questions, moving the goalposts, outright lying about what someone said. All the while pretending to be non-biased and providing a different view for discussion. Well, I won't make that mistake again.

Hmmm. . . never answering your questions huh? I think you've got the rolls reversed sir. You managed to avoid every question I put to you. As you've apparently no intention of answering now either then blocking my posts to avoid responding to me at all sounds appropriate.

 

Readers can see who avoided answers and who did not. . .