Judge cancels Apple patent-infringement trial against Motorola

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 75
    eacummeacumm Posts: 92member


    I wonder how many Millions Motorola deposited into the Judges bank account, corrupt old man.

  • Reply 42 of 75
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member


    An injunction against either Moto or Apple is apparently off the table too. According to Judge Posner late yesterday:


     


    "That leaves only the parties' claims to injunctive relief... and because injunctive relief would impose costs disproportionate to the harm to the patentee and the benefit of the alleged infringement to the alleged infringer and would be contrary to the public interest, I cannot find a basis for an award of injunctive relief."

  • Reply 43 of 75
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    Nonsense! Google isn't being sued by many companies because they aren't making much money on Android, so there's little to get from them. Hardware manufacturers are sued, because that's where the money is. Now that Google owns Moto, suing Moto is suing Google.


    How would Apple suing Google over Android differ from Oracle suing Google over Android? It doesn't sound as tho you have a valid argument for why Apple shouldn't sue Google directly. If they really have copied and stolen from iOS it seems like a logical suit to file. Just force Android out of the market rather than mess around with all these ticky-tack suits in multiple countries with little success so far.


     


    Perhaps Apple fears the same result that Oracle got, with a lot of IP deemed invalid in the process? Or perhaps with the formerly very close relationship, both business and personal, they know where the bodies are buried?image I don't know the reasoning, but your claim that it's because Google's not making much from Android isn't what's holding Apple back IMO.

  • Reply 44 of 75
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    fotoformat wrote: »
    I'm wondering if this judge at 73 is still learning from experience - and thus improving and more rational in his thoughts and decisions... or is he past his sell-by date and thinking more about the easy life of putting his feet up in a retirement garden... so tossing out the difficult cases on a whim!

    Or perhaps he's gotten senile. Or perhaps his attention span isn't long enough for a case of this magnitude. Or perhaps he just wants to go fishing and wants to get this case off the docket.

    We'll see how it plays out. Apple has until Monday to show damages. It really shouldn't be that hard. And if Posner still throws it out on Monday, it will be appealed.
  • Reply 45 of 75
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Or perhaps he's gotten senile. Or perhaps his attention span isn't long enough for a case of this magnitude. Or perhaps he just wants to go fishing and wants to get this case off the docket.
    We'll see how it plays out. Apple has until Monday to show damages. It really shouldn't be that hard. And if Posner still throws it out on Monday, it will be appealed.

    Apple has to prove that Moto phones were purchased instead of iPhones because of the patents in question. A great many Moto phones purchased were because the iPhone wasn't available on VZW, so technically speaking they weren't after the same group of consumers until a year ago.
  • Reply 46 of 75
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    freerange wrote: »
    Talk about BS... You seem to be awash yourself. If they sold even one device that is infringing that would be an injury! If Motorola is infringing a patent, regardless of injury, they should be stopped. The judge's rarionale would be like saying there can be no charge of "attempted murder" as there was no injury. The fact of the matter is that google deliberately and flagrantly copied Apple's IP and Motorola, Samsung, HTC, et al are guilty of monetizing Apple's property.




    motive is needed and damage for attempted murder. (poison someone and they survive coud be attempted murder....

    ok so thats the reason for all of the supid warning on products/ads to stop accusations of attempted murder...

    hmm, "in the movies" stunt men fight, and while no damage is done, in real life it would be attempted murder...
    if while I was walking a car makes an illegal left turn and I jump out of the way, is that attempted murder? (no injury, but had I stayed to be hit by the car I could have been killed, hurt... is that attempt murder.?)
  • Reply 47 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,902member
    drdoppio wrote: »



    It seems to me that "lost sales" can be cured by money damages, so they aren't irreparable. Law Talkin' Guy is making a very compelling point against an injunction. As to damages, Apple should prove it actually lost sales because of this patent's use by Motorola, but last thing I heard was that it was selling every iPhone it ever made, and making them as fast as it could.

    They actually are irreparable. If those lost sales were a one time thing, then a vast amount of money might suffice. If the infringing company could afford it. But often, one lost sale indicates lost sales forever, and how do you calculate that?

    If Samsung or Motorola get 10% of Apples potential sales because of a number of violated patents, and keep them through multiple generations of upgraded devices, with each generation losing another 10% of sales, After several years, that could be a potential 50% of what Apple's sales could have been. That's not by any means impossible. I doubt anyone would deny that Apple's marketshare worldwide today in smartphone sales could be 70% rather than 21%+ if it weren't for Android. A certain amount of those Android sales, and losses of sales by Apple, can be attributed to the addition of a number of features and UI enhancements made form the use of Apple's unlicensed IP.

    How much is that worth now? Billions. Over the next few years, possibly tens of billions.
  • Reply 48 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,902member
    cycomiko wrote: »
    So much for thermonuclear...

    Except that his post, like so many others of his, is just plainly wrong.
  • Reply 49 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,902member
    cycomiko wrote: »
    Google has money. Whether they are making actual income off Android or not is irrelevant.  


    They started the lawsuit before google purchased, so the only way that works is Google paid 12billion for a lawsuit...

    It doesn't work that way. Apple has to show gains made through the infringing use. If there are few gains, that Apple will get little, or nothing. And some of this isn't Google's fault anyway.

    I know how we often like to rip upon Google these days. But what has to be understood here, is that Google allows these companies to add their own skins to Android. A lot of what we see isn't part of the official Android OS, but additions from companies such as HTC, Motorola and Samsung. So Apple must sue these companies individually.
  • Reply 50 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,902member
    eacumm wrote: »
    I wonder how many Millions Motorola deposited into the Judges bank account, corrupt old man.

    Please, that kind of statement isn't warranted.

    And if the decision stands, Apple has still done well here, as Motorola's claims have all been dismissed.
  • Reply 51 of 75
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    melgross wrote: »
    He hasn't actually cancelled it yet, Apple has until Monday to respond.
    But let's not forget that if the case does result in a cancellation, Motorola loses too, as their absurd demands for their FRAND patents are lost as well, and they were asking far more than Apple is.

    I'm sorry why is Motorola suit against Apple anymore absurd then Apples suit against Motorola. Seems like their both pretty weak and are just going after each other for the sake of hindering sales and money. The only people who looses out on these things is us the consumer. Apple, Motorola, Samsung, Google, are all being irresponsible with these patent laws. I wish there was a 100% open source mobile out there that was any good so I can start promoting a company with a little integrity .
  • Reply 52 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,902member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    How would Apple suing Google over Android differ from Oracle suing Google over Android? It doesn't sound as tho you have a valid argument for why Apple shouldn't sue Google directly. If they really have copied and stolen from iOS it seems like a logical suit to file. Just force Android out of the market rather than mess around with all these ticky-tack suits in multiple countries with little success so far.

    Perhaps Apple fears the same result that Oracle got, with a lot of IP deemed invalid in the process? Or perhaps with the formerly very close relationship, both business and personal, they know where the bodies are buried?:lol:  I don't know the reasoning, but your claim that it's because Google's not making much from Android isn't what's holding Apple back IMO.

    There are several aspects to this. One is that Oracle's case has nothing to do with Apple's case.

    What oracle was claiming could have disemboweled Android. What Apple is suing for can give them a case of indigestion. Huge difference.

    But as I mentioned in an above post, a lot of what Apple is suing for has nothing to do with Google anyway. Apple is suing companies that have put their own twist on Android, as is well known. All of their own UI additions, such as " Sense", "Blur" and others are what are causing the problems. Actually, Google has been fairly careful to not do something that would rile Apple up so much so as to cause direct confrontation.

    But it's always hardware sales where the money is. Microsoft is going the same route. They have been suing the hardware manuf turners over their patents rather than going for Google. As I keep saying, this is a standard way of going about it.
  • Reply 53 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,902member
    relic wrote: »
    I'm sorry why is Motorola suit against Apple anymore absurd then Apples suit against Motorola. Seems like their both pretty weak and are just going after each other for the sake of hindering sales and money. The only people who looses out on these things is us the consumer. Apple, Motorola, Samsung, Google, are all being irresponsible with these patent laws. I wish there was a 100% open source mobile out there that was any good so I can start promoting a company with a little integrity .

    It's pretty simple. Apple is suing for non FRAND patent violations. Theoretically, app,e doesn't have to license those patents, and they're allowed to ask anything they want in a negotiation over their use. They don't have to license at all, which is their intent here; to stop them from being used.

    But Motorola is doing something that's being investigated (along with Samsung) by both the US government and the EU for violations, including restraint of trade, etc.

    One thing Motorola has done here is to demand from Apple a 2.25% license fee of the list price of every device. These FRAND patents should be just 0.05% of the selling price. This is I violation of contracts Motorola has signed with companies making the chips using the IP. One thing they have done here is to attempt, unsuccessfully, to get these companies to allow them to remove Apple, and Microsoft from the contractual requirements of FRAND licensing. So, in addition to the unreasonable fee they're demanding, they're not adhering to the fair and EQUAL licensing they're required to do, and that they agreed to do.

    This is a very serious offense, and could get them into legal trouble.
  • Reply 54 of 75
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    One thing Motorola has done here is to demand from Apple a 2.25% license fee of the list price of every device. These FRAND patents should be just 0.05% of the selling price. This is I violation of contracts Motorola has signed with companies making the chips using the IP. One thing they have done here is to attempt, unsuccessfully, to get these companies to allow them to remove Apple, and Microsoft from the contractual requirements of FRAND licensing. So, in addition to the unreasonable fee they're demanding, they're not adhering to the fair and EQUAL licensing they're required to do, and that they agreed to do.

    This is a very serious offense, and could get them into legal trouble.


    Actually Mel it's been reported that Motorola did give courts (in the current MS spat over the same FRAND issue) supporting documents that showed other licensees with comparable 2.25% royalty terms for Moto's FRAND-pledged IP package. FOSSPatents just preferred not to mention it so you probably wouldn't be aware of it. That would make their 2.25% royalty request from Apple EQUAL, if not FAIR as well. Certainly a good starting point if the reports of other's paying that amount are true.


     


    if either Apple of Microsoft would like to pay a lower rate than those other licensees, determined during negotiations, then the time-honored and traditional cross-licensing agreement should work just fine. Don't you agree?


     


    "So in the final pages of Wednesday's ruling, Robart took a hard look at Microsoft's summary judgment argument and found it insufficient. Microsoft had asserted that Motorola's licensing offer was patently unreasonable, but according to (Judge) Robart Motorola offered evidence of other licensing deals on supposedly comparable terms. To determine the relevance of those agreements, Robart said, "the court must engage in a factual comparison between the circumstances of each prior agreement and the circumstances that exist between the parties to this litigation with the benefit of complete briefing."


     


    Nor, he ruled, had Microsoft shown that Motorola made its initial licensing offer in bad faith. Robart said that's also a factual dispute that has to be explored at trial. He set a trial date of Nov 19, 2012."


     


    Too many people are listening to what FOSSPatents wants you to hear IMHO. Things are not as simple as he's trying to convince you they are, nor is is giving you all the facts. He's just hoping no one notices.


    http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2012/06/07/no-summary-judgment-for-microsoft-or-motorola-in-seattle-case/

  • Reply 55 of 75
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    melgross wrote: »
    They actually are irreparable. If those lost sales were a one time thing, then a vast amount of money might suffice. If the infringing company could afford it. But often, one lost sale indicates lost sales forever, and how do you calculate that?
    If Samsung or Motorola get 10% of Apples potential sales because of a number of violated patents, and keep them through multiple generations of upgraded devices, with each generation losing another 10% of sales, After several years, that could be a potential 50% of what Apple's sales could have been. That's not by any means impossible. I doubt anyone would deny that Apple's marketshare worldwide today in smartphone sales could be 70% rather than 21%+ if it weren't for Android. A certain amount of those Android sales, and losses of sales by Apple, can be attributed to the addition of a number of features and UI enhancements made form the use of Apple's unlicensed IP.
    How much is that worth now? Billions. Over the next few years, possibly tens of billions.

    But Apple has to prove that those people that bought a Moto or Samsung phone might have bought an iPhone instead if it weren't for the allegedly infringing patents.
  • Reply 56 of 75
    sensisensi Posts: 346member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Or perhaps he's gotten senile. Or perhaps his attention span isn't long enough for a case of this magnitude. Or perhaps he just wants to go fishing and wants to get this case off the docket.

    We'll see how it plays out. Apple has until Monday to show damages. It really shouldn't be that hard. And if Posner still throws it out on Monday, it will be appealed.


    Oh yeah, he must has gotten senile, lazy or corrupted to dare to rebuke Apple over its lately numerous frivolous UI "patents" claims, with software pseudo-patents being ridiculed all over the world outside the US I do understand that it must be a "difficult case" for a seasoned judge...

  • Reply 57 of 75
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    They actually are irreparable. If those lost sales were a one time thing, then a vast amount of money might suffice. If the infringing company could afford it. But often, one lost sale indicates lost sales forever, and how do you calculate that?

    If Samsung or Motorola get 10% of Apples potential sales because of a number of violated patents, and keep them through multiple generations of upgraded devices, with each generation losing another 10% of sales, After several years, that could be a potential 50% of what Apple's sales could have been. That's not by any means impossible. I doubt anyone would deny that Apple's marketshare worldwide today in smartphone sales could be 70% rather than 21%+ if it weren't for Android. A certain amount of those Android sales, and losses of sales by Apple, can be attributed to the addition of a number of features and UI enhancements made form the use of Apple's unlicensed IP.

    How much is that worth now? Billions. Over the next few years, possibly tens of billions.


     


    I don't think it works the way you described it; how can you sue over future damages? Motorola may decide to throw out the infringing feature any day... And, the "vast amount of money" in losses from a single patent should be proven. Apple may say they've lost a gazillion sales, but who's gonna believe them?


     


    Apple's share wouldn't have been much different without Android -- the losers so far are Symbian, BB, Palm, Maemo, WP, and any mobile OS that was never heard about because of Google's juggernaut. The day WP passes over iOS it will be just as hated around here as Android is, for no other reason but being more popular than iOS.


     


    People really care very little about the UI enhancements; a slick looking gadget that gets them on FB, plays music, doesn't break easily, doesn't require a PhD to operate, and doesn't break the bank, is 99.99% of what people need. If there's a higher status attached, the better -- then people will be willing to shell some extra cash in order to belong. But UI enhancements, meh...

  • Reply 58 of 75


    Why is Hellacool posting on an apple discussion board, he has made it clear he uses droid?  He comes here and adds nothing but drama, why isn't he banned?

  • Reply 59 of 75
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DemonicPaul View Post

    Why is Hellacool posting on an apple discussion board…


     


    Ours is not to reason why. We get plenty of anti-Apple folk here who would never so much as look at an Apple product. As long as they're not being purposely inflammatory, they get a pass.


     


    Often if they are being purposely inflammatory they get a pass… 

  • Reply 60 of 75
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DemonicPaul View Post


    Why is Hellacool posting on an apple discussion board, he has made it clear he uses droid?  He comes here and adds nothing but drama, why isn't he banned?



     


    What good is to Ai's business a member with one post per year, what do you think?

Sign In or Register to comment.