This suit, like Apple's against HTC and Nokia's against Apple, are frivolous and retarding technololgical advancements. Companies shouldn't be allowed to file these types of lawsuits.
Oh wait that was just Apple's lawsuit that's frivolous and retarding advancements.
Did I do that right Windows fanbois?
icyfog, you are of a caliber to replace StudlyTech or Xdreamyskater if needed. You were too brief to stand in for hill60 tho - work on that please!
The argument for the ability to file a claim in your local court (which is being serially abused by this particular court) was established when it was not practical for people to travel great distances to file. These days it is possible. Perhaps there needs to be established one central institution, staffed by specialists that handles all IT IP suits. They would have the expertise to deal with each case without favour, but the idea that there is a 'homer' court is an affront to the justice system in my view.
It costs alot to file a law suit and even more to file one in a jurisdiction across the country. By allowing at least one party to choose the venue, we reduce costs for participants overall, since at least one party will be litigating locally.
Specialized jurisdiction courts are in place for bankruptcy. The argument there is that the procedure is so convoluted that it requires someone with a great deal of bk experience to be able to handle it. In IP suits, similar to most other suits, the procedure is what the court handles (unless its a bench trial and not a jury trial). I suspect this is why there is no specialized IP infringement.
If Apple does not wish to be sued in the EDTX, it should just not do business there. Don't open stores, distribute products to, ship products to, or do anything in EDTX.
Interesting to know, but I'll let the courts sort this one out.
What I would like to know is why now? It's been years since the iPhone has been out alone with alot of other patients they are now claiming all of the sudden.
Apple should just buy out their shares and then take them apart piece by piece, until there is nothing left.
I agree. I'm thnking the solution is for patents to run out after so many years like they do for the drug companies. That way it will keep innovation moving along and companies can have their marketing edge for X number of years, but then these technologies can become part of the industrial landscape, and no one would own them after that point.
Yeah but for pharmacy items what are the terms? 15-20 years? That's much too long. It should be one maybe two years. I remember this drug that all it did was make you feel awake. No high nothing. Just like you got a good nights rest. Cost with most typical insurance? $700.00 for thirty days. That is a rip off.
It should be one year then the generics pay a small licesing fee and if a drug was a success, many genrucs paying them would give them lots of money but make it affordable for the general population!!!
It costs alot to file a law suit and even more to file one in a jurisdiction across the country. By allowing at least one party to choose the venue, we reduce costs for participants overall, since at least one party will be litigating locally.
Taking the second point first, that clearly is not happening. I can't imagine that all of these claimants have a local connection to this court, but instead for some reason they file there. That would suggest that there is a distortion in the legal process. Locality should be irrelevant as far as the legal issues are concerned, but this particular court appears to be thriving on this steady stream of litigation. Presumably it must be that claimants calculate they have more chance of a favourable outcome, ergo the law is not being evenly applied.
"it costs a lot to file a law suit" - why? What moves are being made to reduce that cost? There is a fundamental ethical issue here. The law is supposed to be there for everybody, if access to justice is determined by the ability to pay it is no longer 'justice', it is a privilege. In criminal cases this is particularly egregious. How many times have you read about someone being sent to death row while their court-appointed junior lawyer falls asleep or somesuch. In such instances it is no longer a system of justice but an instrument of tyranny.
I think a big part of the problem is that governments are stuffed full with lawyers. What incentive do they have to reform a system from which they all materially benefit? It is a corruption of ethic, at the very least.
Incidentally, 70% of all the world's lawyers reside within the US. That tells us something doesn't it?
Apple is one of a number of companies -- 22, to be exact
How about making that clear in the title?
"Mobile processor patent suit accuses Apple and others of 14 violations"
AI - please note for future reference that Quadra 610 needs to be spoon fed so would you please ensure your subject headers comply with his requirements - thank you.
Comments
This suit, like Apple's against HTC and Nokia's against Apple, are frivolous and retarding technololgical advancements. Companies shouldn't be allowed to file these types of lawsuits.
Oh wait that was just Apple's lawsuit that's frivolous and retarding advancements.
Did I do that right Windows fanbois?
icyfog, you are of a caliber to replace StudlyTech or Xdreamyskater if needed. You were too brief to stand in for hill60 tho - work on that please!
Something's fishy - even for East Texas.
The argument for the ability to file a claim in your local court (which is being serially abused by this particular court) was established when it was not practical for people to travel great distances to file. These days it is possible. Perhaps there needs to be established one central institution, staffed by specialists that handles all IT IP suits. They would have the expertise to deal with each case without favour, but the idea that there is a 'homer' court is an affront to the justice system in my view.
It costs alot to file a law suit and even more to file one in a jurisdiction across the country. By allowing at least one party to choose the venue, we reduce costs for participants overall, since at least one party will be litigating locally.
Specialized jurisdiction courts are in place for bankruptcy. The argument there is that the procedure is so convoluted that it requires someone with a great deal of bk experience to be able to handle it. In IP suits, similar to most other suits, the procedure is what the court handles (unless its a bench trial and not a jury trial). I suspect this is why there is no specialized IP infringement.
If Apple does not wish to be sued in the EDTX, it should just not do business there. Don't open stores, distribute products to, ship products to, or do anything in EDTX.
The odd thing is that Intel already settled this suit. If Intel has a license to use the technologies, any chips they produce are already licensed.
Something's fishy - even for East Texas.
correct me if im wrong, but i don't think intel makes the iphone's chips
Interesting to know, but I'll let the courts sort this one out.
What I would like to know is why now? It's been years since the iPhone has been out alone with alot of other patients they are now claiming all of the sudden.
Apple should just buy out their shares and then take them apart piece by piece, until there is nothing left.
I agree. I'm thnking the solution is for patents to run out after so many years like they do for the drug companies. That way it will keep innovation moving along and companies can have their marketing edge for X number of years, but then these technologies can become part of the industrial landscape, and no one would own them after that point.
Yeah but for pharmacy items what are the terms? 15-20 years? That's much too long. It should be one maybe two years. I remember this drug that all it did was make you feel awake. No high nothing. Just like you got a good nights rest. Cost with most typical insurance? $700.00 for thirty days. That is a rip off.
It should be one year then the generics pay a small licesing fee and if a drug was a success, many genrucs paying them would give them lots of money but make it affordable for the general population!!!
It costs alot to file a law suit and even more to file one in a jurisdiction across the country. By allowing at least one party to choose the venue, we reduce costs for participants overall, since at least one party will be litigating locally.
Taking the second point first, that clearly is not happening. I can't imagine that all of these claimants have a local connection to this court, but instead for some reason they file there. That would suggest that there is a distortion in the legal process. Locality should be irrelevant as far as the legal issues are concerned, but this particular court appears to be thriving on this steady stream of litigation. Presumably it must be that claimants calculate they have more chance of a favourable outcome, ergo the law is not being evenly applied.
"it costs a lot to file a law suit" - why? What moves are being made to reduce that cost? There is a fundamental ethical issue here. The law is supposed to be there for everybody, if access to justice is determined by the ability to pay it is no longer 'justice', it is a privilege. In criminal cases this is particularly egregious. How many times have you read about someone being sent to death row while their court-appointed junior lawyer falls asleep or somesuch. In such instances it is no longer a system of justice but an instrument of tyranny.
I think a big part of the problem is that governments are stuffed full with lawyers. What incentive do they have to reform a system from which they all materially benefit? It is a corruption of ethic, at the very least.
Incidentally, 70% of all the world's lawyers reside within the US. That tells us something doesn't it?
Apple is one of a number of companies -- 22, to be exact
How about making that clear in the title?
"Mobile processor patent suit accuses Apple and others of 14 violations"
AI - please note for future reference that Quadra 610 needs to be spoon fed so would you please ensure your subject headers comply with his requirements - thank you.