Jragosta, you don't show any inclination to do just a tiny bit of research to understand why you're likely wrong so I'll sort it out for you.
First off, this was just a Section 337 investigation that resulted in an Exclusion Order affecting imports only. That's not the same as an injunction, which would have to be ordered by a Federal Court rather than the ITC. It wasn't even accompanied by a Cease and Desist order, meaning HTC could market any existing product already in the US.
What Apple wants now is for the ITC to find that HTC is still infringing which would then allow them to hopefully get a C&D order. That would prevent HTC from selling any of the offending product that has now been allowed to enter the US.
Contempt proceedings would be brought to enforce a Federal Court injunction, not an Exclusion Order from the ITC. Apple has no injunction in hand to request enforcement of against HTC, and since it's the ITC there's no allowance for contempt proceedings. They're limited to ordering civil penalties if the Cease and Desist order is violated, and in this case even those don't apply since there isn't yet any C&D to violate.
Remind me again which one of us had no business commenting on legal issues we knew nothing about?
Based on your past behavior I think this is the part where you typically disappear rather than admit to the possibility you might be wrong. Either that or time to drag out the strawman, and don't forget the ad-homs.
It's interesting that in another thread, you were making a big deal out of the fact that ITC is a court with a judge who has full judicial rights, yet you seem to have forgotten that.
Furthermore, read the complaint which is shown in this article. Apple is specifically asking for an injunction. So, either Apple's lawyers don't know what they're talking about or you don't. Want to guess which is more likely?
More importantly:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9201.html
"Violation of an injunction is considered contempt of court and is dealt with by contempt proceedings. In such a proceeding, only violation of the injunction need be proven." (talking specifically about ITC).
So, it is clear that violation of an ITC order can be dealt with via a contempt of court charge.
It's interesting that in another thread, you were making a big deal out of the fact that ITC is a court with a judge who has full judicial rights, yet you seem to have forgotten that.
" This popularity is because the only remedy available from the ITC is an order excluding infringing products from entering the U.S., which for electronics such as smartphones, is effectively an injunction."
So, legally, it IS essentially an injunction.
Furthermore, read the complaint which is shown in this article. Apple is specifically asking for an injunction. So, either Apple's lawyers don't know what they're talking about or you don't. Want to guess which is more likely?
"Violation of an injunction is considered contempt of court and is dealt with by contempt proceedings. In such a proceeding, only violation of the injunction need be proven." (talking specifically about ITC).
So, it is clear that violation of an ITC order can be dealt with via a contempt of court charge.
Effectively the same is not the same. You're still wrong. From your very own first link, Apple and the ITC:
"Given the differences between exclusion orders and permanent injunctions, the value of one over the other will vary from case to case"
I believe the Apple injunction request you may be thinking of is in a Federal Court proceeding, perhaps the Samsung case. It would not be the ITC because they don't do injunctions. Those are reserved for Federal Court. FACT.
BTW, what thread was that where I made the "big deal" about full ITC judicial rights? I think you're mistaken yet again. Strike two.
Ready for strike three? No where in this article does it say Apple is requesting an injunction from the ITC. AI used that terminology to link to another article. For Apple to do so would be ridiculous since the ITC doesn't grant injunctions. Read more carefully. That's three mistakes by you in one single post.
Anyway, here's some better links for you if you're curious about types of actions and remedies the ITC can offer. Read and learn grasshopper...
EDIT: By the way, in researching ITC law tonight it's apparent to me that the ITC was probably not asked for an Advisory Opinion on whether HTC changes were sufficient to avoid infringement before Customs decided they were A-OK. Some industry news articles say the ITC approved it, which I think is incorrect. It's not totally clear then whether HTC or Apple will get things to drop in their favor just as the source article at FOSSPatents says.
Effectively the same is not the same. You're still wrong. From your very own first link, Apple and the ITC: <span style="font-family:'Lucida Grande', Optima, Arial, Helvetica;line-height:18px;font-size:small;">"Given the differences between exclusion orders and permanent injunctions, the value of one over the other will vary from case to case"</span>
I believe the Apple injunction request you may be thinking of is in a Federal Court proceeding, perhaps the Samsung case. It would not be the ITC because they don't do injunctions. Those are reserved for Federal Court. FACT.
BTW, what thread was that where I made the "big deal" about full ITC judicial rights? I think you're mistaken yet again. Strike two.
Ready for strike three? No where in this article does it say Apple is requesting an injunction from the ITC. AI used that terminology to link to another article. For Apple to do so would be ridiculous since the ITC doesn't grant injunctions. Read more carefully. That's three mistakes by you in one single post.
Anyway, here's some better links for you if you're curious about types of actions and remedies the ITC can offer. Read and learn grasshopper...
EDIT: By the way, in researching ITC law tonight it's apparent to me that the ITC was probably not asked for an Advisory Opinion on whether HTC changes were sufficient to avoid infringement before Customs decided they were A-OK. Some industry news articles say the ITC approved it, which I think is incorrect. It's not totally clear then whether HTC or Apple will get things to drop in their favor just as the source article at FOSSPatents says.
OK, so your point is that you can't read the articles I cited?
None of yours refutes them, btw.
OK, so your point is that you can't read the articles I cited?
None of yours refutes them, btw.
Figures.
Isn't the question at hand whether or not an alleged patent infringer can be held in contempt of court with regards to an Exclusion Order? It seems to me that none of your cited articles indicate they CAN, while Gatorguy's links clearly indicate they CAN'T.
An Exclusion Order is directed to Customs, not to the patent infringer, and they are the only ones who are compelled to action. In would make sense for the patent infringer to take action though, unless they wanted their products stopped at the border. Contempt of court would not be an end result though, since the exclusion order was not directed to them...
You really don't have to say any more than just this.
It paints you as a complete nutter that has the opposite view of IP to almost every artist, designer and inventor that ever lived and indicates that you probably never thought up an original idea yourself. At least for the life of the artist/inventor, any original works or ideas should be protected. Virtually everyone agrees with this. No commerce of any kind can proceed without this kind of protection.
I would advise you to look up the meaning of the word 'idea' and keep your attempts to insult to yourself.
As is patent law in the U.S. You can not patent an idea in the US (or anywhere else that I know of). You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
The point is that an 'implementation' can be so vague or generic for a US patent that it is not much more than an idea.
What I intended to say is that the EU patent system requires a real (physical) implementation (or a blueprint that can be implemented one on one) to exist for the patent to be accepted, not just a few use case scenarios or some other vague description.
OK, so your point is that you can't read the articles I cited?
None of yours refutes them, btw.
Figures.
Yes they do refute your claim, making you wrong again. You just don't comprehend what you're reading.
In the second link you offered they mix discussion of ITC actions with those in a District Court. I imagine you're having a problem in understanding which is which, a common mistake when you're in a hurry to be right. Perhaps you know someone who could explain your article along with the others to you so it's easier to grasp the difference between court systems and the types of relief they can offer a patent holder.
I've told you before that extending courtesy will be returned in kind. That's another thing you're not comprehending. You're not the smartest guy in the forum, but you're certainly the rudest IMO. Try taking things down a few notches and we could probably have pretty polite discussions where everybody walks away with a better understanding.
Start by admitting to yourself that you don't already know everything. Some of the smartest guys can't see their own limits, and almost everyone thinks they're smarter than average. Try reading thru this link, which isn't meant as an insult in any way. There's probably a good guy hiding inside you somewhere. Give him a chance.
The point is that an 'implementation' can be so vague or generic for a US patent that it is not much more than an idea.
What I intended to say is that the EU patent system requires a real (physical) implementation (or a blueprint that can be implemented one on one) to exist for the patent to be accepted, not just a few use case scenarios or some other vague description.
J.
There's still some encouraging signs that these vague patent claims can be overcome by well-prepared parties. Only about 25% of patent re-examinations let the patent holder get away unscathed with all their claims intact. Add the fact that over 90% of patent re-exam requests are granted, so perhaps the courts (at a substantial cost!) can complete the job the patent office failed to do for whatever reasons.
With the high rate of patent claims trimming by courts it's very obvious to me that the US Patent Office is incapable of adequately vetting patent filings before they're granted. Based on the statistics there's a good chance that a US software patent isn't completely valid even tho a patent may have been issued.
Comments
It's interesting that in another thread, you were making a big deal out of the fact that ITC is a court with a judge who has full judicial rights, yet you seem to have forgotten that.
Let's try:
http://www.mttlrblog.org/2012/05/30/apple-and-the-itc-a-good-lesson-for-students-of-patent-law/
" This popularity is because the only remedy available from the ITC is an order excluding infringing products from entering the U.S., which for electronics such as smartphones, is effectively an injunction."
So, legally, it IS essentially an injunction.
Furthermore, read the complaint which is shown in this article. Apple is specifically asking for an injunction. So, either Apple's lawyers don't know what they're talking about or you don't. Want to guess which is more likely?
More importantly:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9201.html
"Violation of an injunction is considered contempt of court and is dealt with by contempt proceedings. In such a proceeding, only violation of the injunction need be proven." (talking specifically about ITC).
So, it is clear that violation of an ITC order can be dealt with via a contempt of court charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's interesting that in another thread, you were making a big deal out of the fact that ITC is a court with a judge who has full judicial rights, yet you seem to have forgotten that.
Let's try:
http://www.mttlrblog.org/2012/05/30/apple-and-the-itc-a-good-lesson-for-students-of-patent-law/
" This popularity is because the only remedy available from the ITC is an order excluding infringing products from entering the U.S., which for electronics such as smartphones, is effectively an injunction."
So, legally, it IS essentially an injunction.
Furthermore, read the complaint which is shown in this article. Apple is specifically asking for an injunction. So, either Apple's lawyers don't know what they're talking about or you don't. Want to guess which is more likely?
More importantly:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9201.html
"Violation of an injunction is considered contempt of court and is dealt with by contempt proceedings. In such a proceeding, only violation of the injunction need be proven." (talking specifically about ITC).
So, it is clear that violation of an ITC order can be dealt with via a contempt of court charge.
Effectively the same is not the same. You're still wrong. From your very own first link, Apple and the ITC:
"Given the differences between exclusion orders and permanent injunctions, the value of one over the other will vary from case to case"
I believe the Apple injunction request you may be thinking of is in a Federal Court proceeding, perhaps the Samsung case. It would not be the ITC because they don't do injunctions. Those are reserved for Federal Court. FACT.
BTW, what thread was that where I made the "big deal" about full ITC judicial rights? I think you're mistaken yet again. Strike two.
Ready for strike three? No where in this article does it say Apple is requesting an injunction from the ITC. AI used that terminology to link to another article. For Apple to do so would be ridiculous since the ITC doesn't grant injunctions. Read more carefully. That's three mistakes by you in one single post.
Anyway, here's some better links for you if you're curious about types of actions and remedies the ITC can offer. Read and learn grasshopper...
http://www.sughrue.com/files/Publication/8a6b4a5c-a0ea-4d02-9bde-2c238430233f/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/39268144-b4a2-4b6f-8f00-355357d3c526/InvitedtoanITCarticle(1).pdf
http://www.ipo.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Business_Issues&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=17037
EDIT: By the way, in researching ITC law tonight it's apparent to me that the ITC was probably not asked for an Advisory Opinion on whether HTC changes were sufficient to avoid infringement before Customs decided they were A-OK. Some industry news articles say the ITC approved it, which I think is incorrect. It's not totally clear then whether HTC or Apple will get things to drop in their favor just as the source article at FOSSPatents says.
OK, so your point is that you can't read the articles I cited?
None of yours refutes them, btw.
Figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, so your point is that you can't read the articles I cited?
None of yours refutes them, btw.
Figures.
Isn't the question at hand whether or not an alleged patent infringer can be held in contempt of court with regards to an Exclusion Order? It seems to me that none of your cited articles indicate they CAN, while Gatorguy's links clearly indicate they CAN'T.
An Exclusion Order is directed to Customs, not to the patent infringer, and they are the only ones who are compelled to action. In would make sense for the patent infringer to take action though, unless they wanted their products stopped at the border. Contempt of court would not be an end result though, since the exclusion order was not directed to them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You really don't have to say any more than just this.
It paints you as a complete nutter that has the opposite view of IP to almost every artist, designer and inventor that ever lived and indicates that you probably never thought up an original idea yourself. At least for the life of the artist/inventor, any original works or ideas should be protected. Virtually everyone agrees with this. No commerce of any kind can proceed without this kind of protection.
I would advise you to look up the meaning of the word 'idea' and keep your attempts to insult to yourself.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As is patent law in the U.S. You can not patent an idea in the US (or anywhere else that I know of). You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
The point is that an 'implementation' can be so vague or generic for a US patent that it is not much more than an idea.
What I intended to say is that the EU patent system requires a real (physical) implementation (or a blueprint that can be implemented one on one) to exist for the patent to be accepted, not just a few use case scenarios or some other vague description.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, so your point is that you can't read the articles I cited?
None of yours refutes them, btw.
Figures.
Yes they do refute your claim, making you wrong again. You just don't comprehend what you're reading.
In the second link you offered they mix discussion of ITC actions with those in a District Court. I imagine you're having a problem in understanding which is which, a common mistake when you're in a hurry to be right. Perhaps you know someone who could explain your article along with the others to you so it's easier to grasp the difference between court systems and the types of relief they can offer a patent holder.
I've told you before that extending courtesy will be returned in kind. That's another thing you're not comprehending. You're not the smartest guy in the forum, but you're certainly the rudest IMO. Try taking things down a few notches and we could probably have pretty polite discussions where everybody walks away with a better understanding.
Start by admitting to yourself that you don't already know everything. Some of the smartest guys can't see their own limits, and almost everyone thinks they're smarter than average. Try reading thru this link, which isn't meant as an insult in any way. There's probably a good guy hiding inside you somewhere. Give him a chance.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
The point is that an 'implementation' can be so vague or generic for a US patent that it is not much more than an idea.
What I intended to say is that the EU patent system requires a real (physical) implementation (or a blueprint that can be implemented one on one) to exist for the patent to be accepted, not just a few use case scenarios or some other vague description.
J.
There's still some encouraging signs that these vague patent claims can be overcome by well-prepared parties. Only about 25% of patent re-examinations let the patent holder get away unscathed with all their claims intact. Add the fact that over 90% of patent re-exam requests are granted, so perhaps the courts (at a substantial cost!) can complete the job the patent office failed to do for whatever reasons.
With the high rate of patent claims trimming by courts it's very obvious to me that the US Patent Office is incapable of adequately vetting patent filings before they're granted. Based on the statistics there's a good chance that a US software patent isn't completely valid even tho a patent may have been issued.