or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge accuses Apple, Google of using courts as 'business strategy' instead of settling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge accuses Apple, Google of using courts as 'business strategy' instead of settling

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
Apple and Google-owned Motorola aren't showing any signs of interest in actually settling their patent disputes, said one federal judge in Florida. Instead, the two firms are more interested in using the courts as a business strategy.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola said in Miami on Thursday that the two firms are abusing the court system with their increasingly complex patent case, according to Bloomberg. The patent struggle between Apple and Motorola involves more than 180 claims related to 12 patents, as well as the meaning of more than 100 terms.

Google


Each party has accused the other of infringing on patents related to wireless technologies. The initial suit was filed in 2010, but it has since grown.

"The parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute," Scola said in an order dated Wednesday, "they instead are using this and similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end. This is not a proper use of this court."

Using even more harsh terms, Scola's order declined the request of the two companies that the court intervene to cut down on the complexity of the case.

"Without a hint of irony," the order read, "the parties now ask the court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case."

The judge's order gave the two companies four months to narrow the case's scope on their own. Should they be unable to reach terms, Scola will then put the case on hold until he can resolve the disputes over the definitions of patent terms.

Motorola's initial 2010 suit named the iPhone, iPod touch, and certain Macs as infringing on patents Motorola held. Those patents included 3G, GPRS, and 802.11 wireless technologies, as well as certain aspects of Apple's antenna designs.

Apple soon responded, filing a countersuit alleging that several Motorola handsets infringed on Apple patents. Apple said Motorola's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, and six other smartphones infringed on six Apple patents, including "multipoint touchscreen," "object-oriented system locator system," and "ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces."

Even as Google acquired Motorola, the patent struggle continued, with Google executives saying at the time that there were no plans to cease litigation efforts.

In January of last year, Motorola filed for an injunction, seeking to block sales of Apple's iPhone 4S as well as Apple's iCloud service. That suit named six patents that Apple was said to be infringing, including a "receiver having concealed external antenna" and "multiple pager status synchronization system and method." Motorola filed that suit separately from the action begun in 2010, as it was deemed that the 2010 suit was too far along for new patents to be added.
post #2 of 59
Would it be an idea if the legal system aided he Patent Office? Instead bullying companies trying to protect their IP?
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #3 of 59
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
"The parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute," Scola said in an order dated Wednesday, "they instead are using this and similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end. This is not a proper use of this court."

 

I don't think you get it, your honor. One company made, the other stole. They talked about licensing, the thief disagreed. So lawsuit.

 

It's a legal right. Now do your job and preside over the case or give it to someone else and cut out the crap.

post #4 of 59

If Judge Robert Scola can't understand the case perhaps he's better suited to presiding over minor traffic violations and parking ticket disputes... I mean, he wouldn't be so out of his depth - Florida being such a genteel state with the average age being about 85! 

 

/s

post #5 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

If Judge Robert Scola can't understand the case perhaps he's better suited to presiding over minor traffic violations and parking ticket disputes... I mean, he wouldn't be so out of his depth - Florida being such a genteel state with the average age being about 85! 

 

/s

I think Judge Scala understands the reasons for the lawsuits just as well as Judge Barbara Crabb and Judge Richard Posner. All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

If Judge Robert Scola can't understand the case perhaps he's better suited to presiding over minor traffic violations and parking ticket disputes... I mean, he wouldn't be so out of his depth - Florida being such a genteel state with the average age being about 85! 

 

/s

Only 17.6% of the Florida population is over even 65.   Across the entire U.S, 13.3% of the population (in 2011) is over 65.   

post #7 of 59

I don't think the judge is questioning their right to have a case, the judge is questioning how they go about it. Specifically, the judge obviously wants an efficient trial. Instead both parties threw as many patents and claims as they could come up with into the case. Now both companies have realized the case is too unwieldly and they want the judge to help them figure out what are the essential patents and claims the case should proceed on. This is what the judge wanted from the beginning so I don't think it's surprising the judge is annoyed.

post #8 of 59

What this judge said has been said many times in the past with lots of different companies. This is nothing new. Yes using the courts is definitely a business strategy and suing your competitor is just one tool of many a company can pull out of the strategy tool box to win the war over who gets the consumers dollars.

 

Yeah Apple does not want to settle since they are hoping the Motorola purchase will become irrelevant in the big scheme of things and will be gone as a cell phone company. Also if Samsung move away from Adriod to something else and no company is using Adriod then Apple wins. The only way that will happen to to keep dragging it out so no company is willing to take on the risk.

post #9 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think Judge Scala understands the reasons for the lawsuits just as well as Judge Barbara Crabb and Judge Richard Posner. All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.

They can believe whatever they want. That doesn't change the fact that Apple has the right to sue over intellectual property theft. If they don't want to do their job, it's time for them to retire.
"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 #10 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I don't think you get it, your honor. One company made, the other stole. They talked about licensing, the thief disagreed. So lawsuit.

 

That's a pretty mean thing to say about Apple, just because they're using other companies' essential patents without paying license fees. /s

 

Seriously, as many people have noted, these software patent fights seem rarely to be about "stealing" code or anything else that is specific to an implementation.

post #11 of 59
post #12 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.

Considering how long legal systems around the world haven't hesitated in using all manner of industries in order to charge exorbitant amounts of money I'd say, "Payback is a bitch".

Time to work for a living, Your Honour.
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
post #13 of 59
I've always had problems with Federal judges requiring companies to "simplify" their cases. I believe that it is actually unconstitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, I have had a couple of companies. Both had copyrights, trademarks, and most importantly, patents.

The rights given to the owners of those marks are given by the Constitution. The limitations to them are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the methods by which those rights may be modified by legislative action. Nowhere is it specified that the courts may arbitrarily limit those rights.

What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. They are removing the right of those holders to their constitutional right to defend those patents in court, and thereby obtain compensation for unlawfull use by others.

So far, companies have been willing to go along with these requirements, though they aren't pleased about it. I would imagine that if they wished, they could appeal these court requirements as limiting their rights under the Constitution. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would rule, if they took the case. It has, in the past, ruled that courts had no right to limit the defense of defendants, and that legislation was required instead.

I do realize that these cases can drag on forever (it would feel) but, that's the fault if having too many cases for too few courts. It's not a fault of the cases themselves. After all, the results of these cases will be felt decades from now, and would affect tens of billions in sales, and even profits, for a single litigant. It's no wonder these companies are so willing to immerse themselves in such complex, time consuming, and expensive litigation. A single loss, or win, in just one case could transfer billions of sales and profits from one company to the other.

I don't know any real way out of this, but requiring the limiting of the rights granted by the Constitution may not be a legal way out if it, even if it is being done today.
post #14 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've always had problems with Federal judges requiring companies to "simplify" their cases. I believe that it is actually unconstitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, I have had a couple of companies. Both had copyrights, trademarks, and most importantly, patents.

The rights given to the owners of those marks are given by the Constitution. The limitations to them are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the methods by which those rights may be modified by legislative action. Nowhere is it specified that the courts may arbitrarily limit those rights.

What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. They are removing the right of those holders to their constitutional right to defend those patents in court, and thereby obtain compensation for unlawfull use by others.

No they're not Mel. The companies still have their patents and copyrights. They can still bring a lawsuit to enforce those rights. The courts are saying don't put every one of them into a single lawsuit, constantly amended, and make it too difficult to fairly consider each side's assertions and defenses. But they've not taken away the right of IP holders to defend their "property".

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 59
Hey AI, no update on the second Samsung/Apple trial? Samsung has had the majority of their claims tossed while Apple's claims are valid.
post #16 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think Judge Scala understands the reasons for the lawsuits just as well as Judge Barbara Crabb and Judge Richard Posner. All three came to the same conclusion, believing their courts to be a pawn in a business negotiation.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

... What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. ...

 

They are complex cases in many cases. It's also the case that most of the judges, although generally intelligent, likely have little to no understanding of technology, and may actually fear it. Many may recall in U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson basically admitted that he had no idea what to do. The Judges involved in these disputes likely don't have any better understanding of the issues. They know the law, but the subject matter is so alien to them that they have no idea how to apply it.

 

In effect, any patent trial is a "business negotiation" and the Judges frequently encourage the parties to do just that, but, when the negotiations fail, or as in this case when one of the parties (Google/Motorola) isn't negotiating in good faith and contrary to the commitments they've made, it's the court's responsibility to deal with it. Unfortunately, in these case, the judges are mostly throwing up their hands, or, in the case of Judge Posner, blatantly allowing their decisions to be ruled by their personal biases. (It's obvious where his biases, his ignorance and perhaps his investment portfolio lie when he holds up the pharmaceutical industry as his poster boy of how and where patents work well, and are a public good.)

 

This whining that they are pawns in a business negotiation and demands that cases be whittled down to arbitrary limits is nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement that they are incapable of understanding the issues, and their expression of frustration this causes them. I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but expediency isn't justice. Maybe it's time for the legal system to just admit that they can't handle these issues and come up with a new framework where they can.

post #17 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No they're not Mel. The companies still have their patents and copyrights. They can still bring a lawsuit to enforce those rights. The courts are saying don't put every one of them into a single lawsuit, constantly amended, and make it too difficult to fairly consider each side's assertions and defenses. But they've not taken away the right of IP holders to defend their "property".

 

The problem with that is that, by arbitrarily limit what can be included in the case, it can take away the force of one side's argument, where the sheer volume of infringements may affect any number of decisions. Can one fairly consider each sides assertions if you don't let them present them all and kneecap them by limiting the time they are allowed to do so? I don't think so.

 

And, in fact, lawyers for Google/Motorola and Samsung know this, so they complicate the cases intentionally by throwing FRAND/SEP patents into them just to muddy the waters and make it more likely that the judge will arbitrarily force out a good number of assertions on both sides. In effect, they're gaming the incompetence of the legal system to deal with these issues to, if not get a favorable outcome, to at least get as small a negative outcome as possible, with as narrow a negative decision as possible.

post #18 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No they're not Mel. The companies still have their patents and copyrights. They can still bring a lawsuit to enforce those rights. The courts are saying don't put every one of them into a single lawsuit, constantly amended, and make it too difficult to fairly consider each side's assertions and defenses. But they've not taken away the right of IP holders to defend their "property".

You do t seen to understand the issue at all. What I've stated is exactly the issue. You said it isn't, but then go on to restate what I've said in your own inimitable way without realizing it.
post #19 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


You do t seen to understand the issue at all. What I've stated is exactly the issue. You said it isn't, but then go on to restate what I've said in your own inimitable way without realizing it.

How are they being denied the right to enforce their IP Mel? They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 or whatever as needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.

 

As FOSSPatents mentioned earlier today, if there weren't so many claims added from both sides then this case would have been scheduled to be heard last year. The original claims would have already been decided and perhaps headed to an appeal. As is it apparently won't make the docket until sometime in 2014, and that's assuming the claims are trimmed somewhat. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/13 at 12:35pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


They are complex cases in many cases. It's also the case that most of the judges, although generally intelligent, likely have little to no understanding of technology, and may actually fear it. Many may recall in U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson basically admitted that he had no idea what to do. The Judges involved in these disputes likely don't have any better understanding of the issues. They know the law, but the subject matter is so alien to them that they have no idea how to apply it.

In effect, any patent trial is a "business negotiation" and the Judges frequently encourage the parties to do just that, but, when the negotiations fail, or as in this case when one of the parties (Google/Motorola) isn't negotiating in good faith and contrary to the commitments they've made, it's the court's responsibility to deal with it. Unfortunately, in these case, the judges are mostly throwing up their hands, or, in the case of Judge Posner, blatantly allowing their decisions to be ruled by their personal biases. (It's obvious where his biases, his ignorance and perhaps his investment portfolio lie when he holds up the pharmaceutical industry as his poster boy of how and where patents work well, and are a public good.)

This whining that they are pawns in a business negotiation and demands that cases be whittled down to arbitrary limits is nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement that they are incapable of understanding the issues, and their expression of frustration this causes them. I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but expediency isn't justice. Maybe it's time for the legal system to just admit that they can't handle these issues and come up with a new framework where they can.

The court system serves a purpose. In the case of non criminal cases, I.e., usually civil business cases, the entire issue is the stake of the businesses themselves. After all, that why the Constitution grants the right holders the rights they did. Of course the courts will be in the middle. That's the way it must be. We don't have businesses firing at twenty paces. It's also why business are granted a number of the rights of people. For a court to say that it doesn't want to be in the middle is absurd! Of course it will be in the middle. And what is a patent dispute other than a business dispute?
post #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How are they being denied the right to enforce their IP Mel? They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 if needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.

No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court. They aren't being asked to bundle those patents. They can't be. Each claim of a patent MUST be addressed separately. The court is stating that there are too many patents, and too many claims. That's absurd! It's up to the trial to decide whether all of those patents are being violated, and to a certain extent even, to decide whether some are even possibly not valid at all.
post #22 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court. They aren't being asked to bundle those patents. They can't be. Each claim of a patent MUST be addressed separately. The court is stating that there are too many patents, and too many claims. That's absurd! It's up to the trial to decide whether all of those patents are being violated, and to a certain extent even, to decide whether some are even possibly not valid at all.

You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Yeah Apple does not want to settle since they are hoping the Motorola purchase will become irrelevant in the big scheme of things and will be gone as a cell phone company. Also if Samsung move away from Adriod to something else and no company is using Adriod then Apple wins. The only way that will happen to to keep dragging it out so no company is willing to take on the risk.

 

The more time goes on, the more I think this is true. Samsung already tries to differentiate from vanilla Android, and they've been dabbling in other mobile OSes for a long time (in an r&d sense, not a production one). If Samsung ditches Android, that will be the start of its death... I wonder if Apple is trying to push things this direction too. It would certainly be in their favour - iOS would be the most mature of all the mobile OSes left standing.

post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.

 

So, under your theory, each individual patent dispute should be an individual trial. There should be no counterclaims filed, those should have to be decided in a separate case. Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily chunking them up.

 

I agree that there's a lot of "delay tactics and gamesmanship" involved here, but I don't think you can put that on both parties. That's simply the legal strategy that Google/Motorola and Samsung have adopted, to sow confusion.

post #25 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 or whatever as needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.

From FOSSPatents:

 

"...there are still 22 patents at issue: 12 Motorola patents and 10 Apple patents. Apple had sort of withdrawn two of its 12 asserted patents ("sort of" because it might re-raise them if an appeals court overturns an unfavorable claim construction)...

 

Claim construction was decided with respect to the first six patents each party asserted. It's still needed for the ones asserted last year. Without claim construction, it's hard for parties to figure out which patents are likely to be deemed infringed or invalid. But if the parties can't narrow their case, then the court has to construe over 100 terms from 180 claims from the 12 patents asserted in 2012. That's what Judge Scola is not quite prepared to do. He wants the parties now "to narrow the case to a manageable scope themselves". Otherwise, he "forewarns them that [the court] intends to stay the litigation while the [claim construction] issues are pending and issue a decision as expeditiously as the parties deserve" (meaning things will be delayed because the parties deserve it if they don't narrow the case)."

 

So neither Apple nor Motorola are being denied the right to enforce their IP. What the court has now told them is that if they cannot find a way to trim their current claims in this specific case it will cause a significant delay in the court hearing, with too much to consider. Translation:  Both parties should plan to wait a looonngg time for the case to be heard. If' it's really important to Apple and Moto to reach a conclusion in a timely manner then find a way to trim it down.

 

It's Apple and Motorola's move.


Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/13 at 12:36pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 if needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.

 

Why is 5 more efficient than 30? After all, that's 6 trials instead of one. Doesn't seem very efficient.

 

Why 5? Why not 10? What if all 30 need to be in it for "clarity"?

 

I don't think you know what you're talking about, I think you're just defending what's best for your master.

post #27 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.

I understand this very well. It doesn't change anything I've said. And it contradicts what you said just a post ago. Of course, if a judge forces companies to drop assertions from their docket, they can bring them up in another trial. That's besides the point. The costs escalate for everyone if that happens, including the courts. It's still much cheaper, and efficient for everyone to have all related claims in the same trial. Forcing claims to be withdrawn often has the effect of not being able, in a practical sense, to bring forth those claims at all. And the judges know that.

It's still a narrowing of the rights of the claimants. The courts are not supposed to be doing that, but they do often enough, as the claimants bend to the cause of expediency. Doesn't make it correct.
post #28 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court. 

 

The judge didn't say to eliminate patents.  He said that the lawyers needed to fix their own mess that they had made.

 

Both Apple's and Google's lawyers kept piling on more and more details, until they both realized they had gone too far...  and then those lawyers decided to ask the JUDGE to streamline the case for them.

 

Quote:
Using even more harsh terms, Scola's order declined the request of the two companies that the court intervene to cut down on the complexity of the case.

"Without a hint of irony," the order read, "the parties now ask the court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case."

 

In other words, the lawyers made the mess in the first place, so he wants them to take the first crack at cleaning up what they did.  Then he'll step in and help.

post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From FOSSPatents:

"...there are still 22 patents at issue: 12 Motorola patents and 10 Apple patents. Apple had sort of withdrawn two of its 12 asserted patents ("sort of" because it might re-raise them if an appeals court overturns an unfavorable claim construction)...



 



Claim construction was decided with respect to the first six patents each party asserted. It's still needed for the ones asserted last year. Without claim construction, it's hard for parties to figure out which patents are likely to be deemed infringed or invalid. But if the parties can't narrow their case, then the court has to construe over 100 terms from 180 claims from the 12 patents asserted in 2012. That's what Judge Scola is not quite prepared to do. He wants the parties now "to narrow the case to a manageable scope themselves". Otherwise, he "forewarns them that [the court] intends to stay the litigation while the [claim construction] issues are pending and issue a decision as expeditiously as the parties deserve" (meaning things will be delayed because the parties deserve it if they don't narrow the case)."



 



So neither Apple nor Motorola are being denied the right to enforce their IP. What the court has now told them is that if they cannot find a way to trim their current claims in this specific case it will cause a significant delay in the court hearing, with too much to consider. Translation:  Both parties should plan to wait a looonngg time for the case to be heard. If' it's really important to Apple and Moto to reach a conclusion in a timely manner then find a way to trim it down.



 



It's Apple and Motorola's move.



Here is the actual order of the court, in its entirety:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135321905/13-04-09-Order-Denying-Case-Management-Conference-and-Extending-Markman-Deadlines

His opinion of what is taking place, is just his opinion, do course. He may be frustrated by the complexity, but that's what usually happens in situations such as this one.

Motorola/Google brought the case in the first place, hoping it would go through quickly. Of course, they had no real expectation of that happening, because they must have known that Apple would respond. Apple did, and then Google added more to the trial, so we stand with, I believe, 12 Google patents, and 10 Apple patents, all of which have multiple claims.

This is the nature of the beast. And the judge does admit that most, if not all, trials of this type are of a business nature, so why he even bothers to bring that up is bewildering.
post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The judge didn't say to eliminate patents.  He said that the lawyers needed to fix their own mess that they had made.

Both Apple's and Google's lawyers kept piling on more and more details, until they both realized they had gone too far...  and then those lawyers decided to ask the JUDGE to streamline the case for them.


In other words, the lawyers made the mess in the first place, so he wants them to take the first crack at cleaning up what they did.  Then he'll step in and help.

Actually no. What you've said here simply isn't true. First if all, stop blaming the lawyers. I know people love to do that, but these are business decisions. Lawyers carry out those business decisions as best as they can. It's the CEO, and others, who decide what they want done. Try to remember that.

The people who make the final decisions on where these trials go for these two companies are Larry Paige, and Tim Cook, not the lawyers. There is no "mess" that the lawyers have made. And eliminating patents and claims is exactly what the judge has ordered them both to do.
post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
 
 First if all, stop blaming the lawyers.
 
Don't look at me. It was the judge who was blaming the lawyers.  He wrote:

 

Quote:

"Although the parties agree that the case needs to be simplified, “primarily through voluntarily agreeing to drop patents and claims from the case,” the parties unsurprisingly have been unable to agree on how to accomplish this goal. 
 
"Without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the Court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case. 
 
"The Court declines this invitation."

 

And then he summed up with:

 

Quote:
"Perhaps because the parties correctly suspected that the Court would balk at their request to clean up their mess, the parties also suggest delaying the Markman process until they can narrow the case themselves. Since that puts the onus where it belongs, that is what the Court will do."
post #32 of 59
Truly a fantastic thread this one. I'm not American, and don't have a good understanding of US law. I'm learning a lot here, thanks much.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I don't think you get it, your honor. One company made, the other stole. They talked about licensing, the thief disagreed. So lawsuit.

It's a legal right. Now do your job and preside over the case or give it to someone else and cut out the crap.

My exact thought. Methinks the judge feels out of his depth and this is his retort.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've always had problems with Federal judges requiring companies to "simplify" their cases. I believe that it is actually unconstitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, I have had a couple of companies. Both had copyrights, trademarks, and most importantly, patents.

The rights given to the owners of those marks are given by the Constitution. The limitations to them are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the methods by which those rights may be modified by legislative action. Nowhere is it specified that the courts may arbitrarily limit those rights.

What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. They are removing the right of those holders to their constitutional right to defend those patents in court, and thereby obtain compensation for unlawfull use by others.

So far, companies have been willing to go along with these requirements, though they aren't pleased about it. I would imagine that if they wished, they could appeal these court requirements as limiting their rights under the Constitution. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would rule, if they took the case. It has, in the past, ruled that courts had no right to limit the defense of defendants, and that legislation was required instead.

I do realize that these cases can drag on forever (it would feel) but, that's the fault if having too many cases for too few courts. It's not a fault of the cases themselves. After all, the results of these cases will be felt decades from now, and would affect tens of billions in sales, and even profits, for a single litigant. It's no wonder these companies are so willing to immerse themselves in such complex, time consuming, and expensive litigation. A single loss, or win, in just one case could transfer billions of sales and profits from one company to the other.

I don't know any real way out of this, but requiring the limiting of the rights granted by the Constitution may not be a legal way out if it, even if it is being done today.


What you seem to be forgetting is that the concept of Patents is to promote the good of society as a whole, to promote the sharing of ideas and to contribute to the common good. It seems to me that especially in the US, exactly the opposite is ACTUALLY happening. Neither the US constitution nor the Patent law are intended to provide a means for an "inventor" to blackmail society and to block innovation by others. This is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to do, and is particularly absurd in the fast-moving Mobile phone business. You have seen the guestimate that modern smartphones are encumbered by something like 250,000 individual patents. If ALL patent holders behaved exactly as Apple and Motorola are doing, then there will be no progress.

 

As a european I actually find it quite funny. The US in their limitless greed are actually going to kill their own society. Believe me, the US is MUCH more vulnerable to this danger than many people want to believe. I don't know of any other country where IP disputes and Patent law are having such a devastating effect. Even with some of the more insane judgements in the German Patent courts, it doesn't even come into the same ballpark as is "daily business" in the US.

 

To take a neutral example ... look at the Microsoft "FairSearch" initiative agains Google in the EU. It is utterly beyond belief, that  MS of all companies should be taking the position it does. ... particularly since it is virtually impossible to buy a PC or a laptop that doesn't come with Windows-8 pre-installed.

 

So I rather think you americans are reaping what you sow. Serves you right !

post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
 
 First if all, stop blaming the lawyers.
 
Don't look at me. It was the judge who was blaming the lawyers.  He wrote:

 

Quote:

"Although the parties agree that the case needs to be simplified, “primarily through voluntarily agreeing to drop patents and claims from the case,” the parties unsurprisingly have been unable to agree on how to accomplish this goal. 
 
"Without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the Court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case. 
 
"The Court declines this invitation."

 

And then he summed up with:

 

Quote:
"Perhaps because the parties correctly suspected that the Court would balk at their request to clean up their mess, the parties also suggest delaying the Markman process until they can narrow the case themselves. Since that puts the onus where it belongs, that is what the Court will do."

 

Sorry, I fail to see where he specifically blamed the lawyers. All I see are references to "the parties", which would be Apple and Google/Motorola.

post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Sorry, I fail to see where he specifically blamed the lawyers. All I see are references to "the parties", which would be Apple and Google/Motorola.

 

Once a company decides to sue, it's the law firm's job to figure out the details and how far to take them.

 

Do you think that the CEOs of each company came up with all the patent claim constructs to settle?   No, that's not their expertise.

 

The constructs are the time consuming thing that the judge is upset about, not the number of patents per se. 

post #37 of 59

This would not be such a mess if the judges actually made decisions that would settle a case and actually did there job.  Look at Lucy Koe For example she has made an absolute mess of the jury ruling in the 9 Circuit.  Yes the jury made mistakes in the calculations of some of the fines but She has overruled the jury with regards to willful infringement because she said that it is apples responsibility to show that infringement harmed apple. LOL.  The evidence in the case was damning.  Like the 132 page internal report from samsung how to outright copy every single iOS interface design to make there galaxy look more like iOS and the iPhone.   Crap like this causes more court battles down the road because you know they will appeal. And when they did samsung wants the rights to retry all of the devices that were found to have the fines miscalculated  completely as a new trial for infringement.  She has shot herself in the foot so many times it is ridiculous.  Barbra Crab is just as bad.  Transferring  whole cases out of her court when she doesnt want to hear them and While I like what Richard Posner said about FRAND patents in his ruling, he basically just washed his hands of the whole Motorola/Apple case.  

 

Meanwhile these cases drag on because no judge wants to make the kind of decisions that are necessary to end this crap.  They just drag it out for so long, that by the time Justice is served if ever, nobody that started the cases will remember or be around that cares, and the infringers like samsung will have gotten away with infringement because there is no ruling that will stop them from doing so, because of judges hand wringing.

 

The Judges need to look at themselves before blaming the companies for how many patents are in there courts.    Judges rule in the court and they have the right to winnow the cases to a manageable  sized if they so desire, it is there job.  And if it is there job then they need to just do it, and quit complaining.


Edited by Mechanic - 4/11/13 at 4:15pm
post #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


And where in all of that did he specifically blame the lawyers? The "parties" mentioned are the clients. It's up to the clients to decide which articles to drop, not the lawyers, though the lawyers will advise as to which would be better defended.
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


What you seem to be forgetting is that the concept of Patents is to promote the good of society as a whole, to promote the sharing of ideas and to contribute to the common good. It seems to me that especially in the US, exactly the opposite is ACTUALLY happening. Neither the US constitution nor the Patent law are intended to provide a means for an "inventor" to blackmail society and to block innovation by others. This is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to do, and is particularly absurd in the fast-moving Mobile phone business. You have seen the guestimate that modern smartphones are encumbered by something like 250,000 individual patents. If ALL patent holders behaved exactly as Apple and Motorola are doing, then there will be no progress.

As a european I actually find it quite funny. The US in their limitless greed are actually going to kill their own society. Believe me, the US is MUCH more vulnerable to this danger than many people want to believe. I don't know of any other country where IP disputes and Patent law are having such a devastating effect. Even with some of the more insane judgements in the German Patent courts, it doesn't even come into the same ballpark as is "daily business" in the US.

To take a neutral example ... look at the Microsoft "FairSearch" initiative agains Google in the EU. It is utterly beyond belief, that  MS of all companies should be taking the position it does. ... particularly since it is virtually impossible to buy a PC or a laptop that doesn't come with Windows-8 pre-installed.

So I rather think you americans are reaping what you sow. Serves you right !

As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there.

What you don't understand is that by supporting the rights of patent owners, it's society that does benefit. All of these big companies produce many inventions for which they receive patents. They use most of those patents in new, and innovative products which we buy. That's a direct benefit to society. When companies such as Google, Samsung, and others steal the IP those companies invent, they are contributing nothing of much value themselves, while destroying much of the value of the inventions for the owners.

I could understand the position if the company was a patent troll, as defined as someone who buys up patents with no intention to use them, but with the intention of waiting until some company that isn't aware of the patent does, and then when that company builds up a successful business, pounces and attempts to get unreasonable compensation.

But that isn't Apple. I surely hope you don't think it is. Apple is one of the most innovative companies around. Most of the modern computer, telecommunications and content industries as currently evolved, have evolved because of some Apple invention, product, or service.

And all of that is exceeding expensive to do. So when they get ripped off by some company like Google, who thinks they have a right to other's IP, they fight back, as they should. I don't think you really understand what a patent is all about. If companies didn't defend theirs, they there would be no point to issuing them. You must realize that. Patents are there to encourage inventors to invent, by according them sole control over how that patent is used, and by whom. That's true here, and in Europe. It always has been. The benefit to society come from those inventors who take advantage of the security the patent offers them in making exclusive use of it if they wish, or licensing it to others, if they wish.

But the laws everywhere are quite clear. The owner of the patent has sole discretion as to how they will handle the use of it. No one else has the right to take that exclusivity away. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand patents anywhere. Don't tell us how our system is broken and how wonderful it is there. I could tell you a lot of horror stories. And if the EU was ever capable of getting their act together, Europe could finally act like the one entity it's supposed to be on so many fronts. But the petty parochialism each country has towards every other prevents anything from working properly. Go fix that.
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Once a company decides to sue, it's the law firm's job to figure out the details and how far to take them.


Do you think that the CEOs of each company came up with all the patent claim constructs to settle?   No, that's not their expertise.


The constructs are the time consuming thing that the judge is upset about, not the number of patents per se. 

Most of the lawyers on these cases are very good lawyers, but are not experts on any of the patents in question. The engineers in the company are. And the decision to defend or not is a business decision, not a legal one. There will be a discussion between the relevant top management, engineers and lawyers befor a case is made. That's the way it works. My own company had to defend two patents in court on two seperate occasions, ad that's how we did it as well. I, and my partners had to make the decision to go ahead, not the lawyers. After all was explained, the advised on how much of a case the believed we had, but it was out decision to go ahead. We won both cases.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Judge accuses Apple, Google of using courts as 'business strategy' instead of settling
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge accuses Apple, Google of using courts as 'business strategy' instead of settling