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:
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