And allowing infringement cannot possibly have "catastrophic effects" on the patent holder? Oh right, Apple is the giant in this case and Moto is the underdog - so Apple can take the hits.
What a complicated system we have - free market? sure but only if you don't step on the toes of anyone who has good lobbyists or lawyers.
It seems to me that the concept of the Free Market is like the model of the Solar System as described by Copernicus - neat and orderly - whereas the reality of the situation is far more intricate and compacted.
The entire purpose of patents is to provide an exclusivity to the inventor.
Patents confer a right of intellectual property ownership and the ability of an inventor to be fairly compensated. But exclusivity is too much of a stretch in all cases, therefore FRAND, for instance.
Patents confer a right of intellectual property ownership and the ability of an inventor to be fairly compensated. But exclusivity is too much of a stretch in all cases, therefore FRAND, for instance.
You don't understand patents or FRAND.
FRAND is a VOLUNTARY program where a patent older who has the exclusive rights to their invention chooses to allow others to license it. But, ultimately, it is based on the premise that the patent holder has the exclusive right to decide what to do with their invention.
Remember when Posner supposedly "dismissed" this very case just two weeks ago, but added the disclaimer that his decision "wasn't final"? People all over were saying he can't just throw out the case and that he would be appealed. Well, he allowed the case to continue which I think he was planning all along.
I don't see this as any different. I think he's getting sick of both sides and wants to get down to settling this and is using some harsh words to get everyone to "hurry up". Suggesting Apple should license to Motorola doesn't mean that he's going to try and force Apple to license (which he couldn't legally do anyway, IMO). He's making a strong suggestion that the two sides should sit down and maybe come up with some possible solutions, one of which may be licensing.
And Posner saying an injunction could have "catastrophic effects" doesn't mean he wouldn't consider it. For example, if Motorola was being unreasonable to an Apple offer, then Posner could say "well, we gave you a viable option so now it's come down to an injunction". Or he could be suggesting to Motorola to "come up with a solution of your own because what you're facing is catastrophic".
I think people shouldn't take his statements to mean he's already decided how thing's should go - I think he just likes to stir the pot.
And that's an extremely unprofessional position for him to be in. His job is to interpret the law. Stirring the pot is NOT his job.
Any attempt to coerce companies into a settlement which is unfavorable to one side (such as, for example, suggesting to Apple that he might not award an injunction so they'd better settle) could easily be grounds for an appeal. Judges are supposed to remain completely neutral and not play silly games.
And that's an extremely unprofessional position for him to be in. His job is to interpret the law. Stirring the pot is NOT his job.
Any attempt to coerce companies into a settlement which is unfavorable to one side (such as, for example, suggesting to Apple that he might not award an injunction so they'd better settle) could easily be grounds for an appeal. Judges are supposed to remain completely neutral and not play silly games.
Your personal animus toward Judge Posner is becoming increasingly clear. Be careful about accusations of bias unless you wish to be painted with the same brush.
I don't see this as any different. I think he's getting sick of both sides and wants to get down to settling this and is using some harsh words to get everyone to "hurry up". Suggesting Apple should license to Motorola doesn't mean that he's going to try and force Apple to license (which he couldn't legally do anyway, IMO). He's making a strong suggestion that the two sides should sit down and maybe come up with some possible solutions, one of which may be licensing.
There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.
"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases. It's been in the news fairly recently with both India and China announcing their intent to make greater use of it. Personally I would not be shocked to see it ordered in some upcoming US mobile patent case if some of these fairly broad/vague patents continue to be used as concrete walls to restrict competition rather than operating as gates. Whether it would hold up with SCOTUS is a great question that I hope would get answered someday soon.
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer.
So where's the "catastrophe"?
How does the potential for Moto to be even *more* lousy in what they do "hurt" the consumer. Moto dies, another company steps in to pick up the slack. Company A (doesn't matter what they invented 40 years ago) sh*ts the bed. No problem. Someone hungrier and more innovative will take their place. Company B will take a crack at it.
What is this, a BAILOUT??
Motorola did this to themselves. That's really the bottom line. And if you *really* want to point the finger, point it at Google. They've been taking advantage of the company, wielding it as a patent-sword, while apparently doing nothing to help Moto's market position.
If Moto wins they can sue for damages. Heck in Germany if you want an injunction you have to post a bond that is decided by the courts and goes to the other side if thy win. Not a bad idea to have in the US
Yes that's true but its like suing for the lost of a limb, no amount of money will make you whole again. It would hurt Motorola immediately and for years to come.
Ah the wisdom of the internet... So Judge Posner has studied the law for half if not more of his life, but you people know more than he does? He's probably forgotten more than any of you will ever know in your lifetime!
Posner's argument seems to be that not all patent violation carry the same weight. Apple or Motorola for that matter can't even come up with a reasonable estimation of the damage inflicted to them by the other party violating their patents. If Apple or Motorola can't show how they were harmed then how can they call for a ban on a product? You may disagree with that assertion, but to call him "senile" or biased" is just plain idiotic! If you have a better legal argument, then by all means do share.
Ah the wisdom of the internet... So Judge Posner has studied the law for half if not more of his life, but you people know more than he does? He's probably forgotten more than any of you will ever know in your lifetime!
Posner's argument seems to be that not all patent violation carry the same weight. Apple or Motorola for that matter can't even come up with a reasonable estimation of the damage inflicted to them by the other party violating their patents. If Apple or Motorola can't show how they were harmed then how can they call for a ban on a product? You may disagree with that assertion, but to call him "senile" or biased" is just plain idiotic! If you have a better legal argument, then by all means do share.
Posner is asking parties to demonstrate what they naturally wouldn't be able to demonstrate anyway at this juncture. The *real* issue is the harm that could result down the road. Posner is being asked to think in the future, and he doesn't enjoy doing that because that would mean speculation beyond the facts at issue, which would *really* mean speculation *based on* the facts currently at issue, but he'd still like to avoid that, no matter how reasonable we make it sound. That sort of speculation or forecasting-out is difficult to do, judges usually aren't to thrilled about having to do that, and it's a very risky thing to do in terms of setting precedent. It's easy to make mistakes in such a venture, and judges would like to avoid that sort of mess, especially if their name might be tied to extra-curricular and extra-ordinary "legal adventuring" gone wrong.
Your personal animus toward Judge Posner is becoming increasingly clear. Be careful about accusations of bias unless you wish to be painted with the same brush.
What 'personal animus'? There's no such thing.
It is clear, however, that he has overstepped the bounds if he is going to try to force Apple to license Motorola. Furthermore, someone else said that he was 'stirring the pot' and I pointed out that it's not the judge's job to stir the pot.
There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.
"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases.
But, since this case isn't remotely analogous to those situations, talk of compulsory licensing is absurd. But then, you know that.
Pretty sad that your pay master, Google, is so pathetic that they have you pushing that position. But, it's not surprising, given Google's history of complete disregard of others (although not their own) IP.
I'm quite certain that Judge Posner, with 50 years of legal under his belt and numerous cited opinions and writings, is more aware of what he can and cannot do from the bench than any random internet guy on a user forum. We're all just posting opinions, most of them unprofessional, so nothing to take too seriously.
If Apple's counsel feels that Judge Posner has overstepped I've no doubt they'll mention it in a studied legal argument.
Here's a simple idea judge. Make Motorola and all the other iPhone copy cats pay out the ass. That will promote.... wait for it..... THEIR OWN INNOVATIONS!!!! Why is it ok for these other companies to copy Apples hard work and research?? Why should they get a free ride? Oh poor Motorola will be devastated if the ruling is in Apple's favor, well maybe they should have thought about that before they turned on their photo copiers and blatantly ripped off someone else's ideas and innovations.
It has not yet been proven that Motorola is infringing. The relative benefits and burden need to be considered by any judge deciding upon this sort of an injunction request.
Apple vs Android worldwide has absolutely no bearing on the facts being placed before him and shows that he is not being impartial in reaching decisions.
Judicial economy is always a factor when judges make decisions on procedural matters. Piecemeal litigation is discouraged. If there is a procedure which will decide things once and for all, in general, it is seen as preferable.
So you believe that his view that because it would be better for customers buying Motorola phones that Apple should be forced to license technology they created to differentiate their products and patented to protect to their competitors.
I have seen no firm evidence that this is "his view".
There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.
"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases. It's been in the news fairly recently with both India and China announcing their intent to make greater use of it. Personally I would not be shocked to see it ordered in some upcoming US mobile patent case if some of these fairly broad/vague patents continue to be used as concrete walls to restrict competition rather than operating as gates. Whether it would hold up with SCOTUS is a great question that I hope would get answered someday soon.
Compulsory licensing is sometimes included as an ingredient in Patent Reform. But it would take new legislation. No judge has the ability to write new legislation.
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer.
So where's the "catastrophe"?
The grant of an injunction is what was referred to as a catastrophe. Not the payment of royalties. There is no means for him to order that royalties be paid. That is why he is encouraging the parties to put in place the deal - to avoid the catastrophe.
Comments
And allowing infringement cannot possibly have "catastrophic effects" on the patent holder? Oh right, Apple is the giant in this case and Moto is the underdog - so Apple can take the hits.
What a complicated system we have - free market? sure but only if you don't step on the toes of anyone who has good lobbyists or lawyers.
It seems to me that the concept of the Free Market is like the model of the Solar System as described by Copernicus - neat and orderly - whereas the reality of the situation is far more intricate and compacted.
Patents confer a right of intellectual property ownership and the ability of an inventor to be fairly compensated. But exclusivity is too much of a stretch in all cases, therefore FRAND, for instance.
You don't understand patents or FRAND.
FRAND is a VOLUNTARY program where a patent older who has the exclusive rights to their invention chooses to allow others to license it. But, ultimately, it is based on the premise that the patent holder has the exclusive right to decide what to do with their invention.
And that's an extremely unprofessional position for him to be in. His job is to interpret the law. Stirring the pot is NOT his job.
Any attempt to coerce companies into a settlement which is unfavorable to one side (such as, for example, suggesting to Apple that he might not award an injunction so they'd better settle) could easily be grounds for an appeal. Judges are supposed to remain completely neutral and not play silly games.
Your personal animus toward Judge Posner is becoming increasingly clear. Be careful about accusations of bias unless you wish to be painted with the same brush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I don't see this as any different. I think he's getting sick of both sides and wants to get down to settling this and is using some harsh words to get everyone to "hurry up". Suggesting Apple should license to Motorola doesn't mean that he's going to try and force Apple to license (which he couldn't legally do anyway, IMO). He's making a strong suggestion that the two sides should sit down and maybe come up with some possible solutions, one of which may be licensing.
There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.
"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases. It's been in the news fairly recently with both India and China announcing their intent to make greater use of it. Personally I would not be shocked to see it ordered in some upcoming US mobile patent case if some of these fairly broad/vague patents continue to be used as concrete walls to restrict competition rather than operating as gates. Whether it would hold up with SCOTUS is a great question that I hope would get answered someday soon.
Where's the "catastrophe"?
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer.
So where's the "catastrophe"?
How does the potential for Moto to be even *more* lousy in what they do "hurt" the consumer. Moto dies, another company steps in to pick up the slack. Company A (doesn't matter what they invented 40 years ago) sh*ts the bed. No problem. Someone hungrier and more innovative will take their place. Company B will take a crack at it.
What is this, a BAILOUT??
Motorola did this to themselves. That's really the bottom line. And if you *really* want to point the finger, point it at Google. They've been taking advantage of the company, wielding it as a patent-sword, while apparently doing nothing to help Moto's market position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
They've been taking advantage of the company, wielding it as a patent-sword, while apparently doing nothing to help Moto's market position.
Since they've only owned Moto for a month, I think giving them a little more time to work on Moto's market position would be fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Since they've only owned Moto for a month, I think giving them a little more time to work on Moto's market position would be fair.
Fair enough.
Yes that's true but its like suing for the lost of a limb, no amount of money will make you whole again. It would hurt Motorola immediately and for years to come.
Ah the wisdom of the internet... So Judge Posner has studied the law for half if not more of his life, but you people know more than he does? He's probably forgotten more than any of you will ever know in your lifetime!
Posner's argument seems to be that not all patent violation carry the same weight. Apple or Motorola for that matter can't even come up with a reasonable estimation of the damage inflicted to them by the other party violating their patents. If Apple or Motorola can't show how they were harmed then how can they call for a ban on a product? You may disagree with that assertion, but to call him "senile" or biased" is just plain idiotic! If you have a better legal argument, then by all means do share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiroger
Ah the wisdom of the internet... So Judge Posner has studied the law for half if not more of his life, but you people know more than he does? He's probably forgotten more than any of you will ever know in your lifetime!
Posner's argument seems to be that not all patent violation carry the same weight. Apple or Motorola for that matter can't even come up with a reasonable estimation of the damage inflicted to them by the other party violating their patents. If Apple or Motorola can't show how they were harmed then how can they call for a ban on a product? You may disagree with that assertion, but to call him "senile" or biased" is just plain idiotic! If you have a better legal argument, then by all means do share.
Posner is asking parties to demonstrate what they naturally wouldn't be able to demonstrate anyway at this juncture. The *real* issue is the harm that could result down the road. Posner is being asked to think in the future, and he doesn't enjoy doing that because that would mean speculation beyond the facts at issue, which would *really* mean speculation *based on* the facts currently at issue, but he'd still like to avoid that, no matter how reasonable we make it sound. That sort of speculation or forecasting-out is difficult to do, judges usually aren't to thrilled about having to do that, and it's a very risky thing to do in terms of setting precedent. It's easy to make mistakes in such a venture, and judges would like to avoid that sort of mess, especially if their name might be tied to extra-curricular and extra-ordinary "legal adventuring" gone wrong.
What 'personal animus'? There's no such thing.
It is clear, however, that he has overstepped the bounds if he is going to try to force Apple to license Motorola. Furthermore, someone else said that he was 'stirring the pot' and I pointed out that it's not the judge's job to stir the pot.
So what makes you imagine 'personal animus'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.
"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases.
But, since this case isn't remotely analogous to those situations, talk of compulsory licensing is absurd. But then, you know that.
Pretty sad that your pay master, Google, is so pathetic that they have you pushing that position. But, it's not surprising, given Google's history of complete disregard of others (although not their own) IP.
I'm quite certain that Judge Posner, with 50 years of legal under his belt and numerous cited opinions and writings, is more aware of what he can and cannot do from the bench than any random internet guy on a user forum. We're all just posting opinions, most of them unprofessional, so nothing to take too seriously.
If Apple's counsel feels that Judge Posner has overstepped I've no doubt they'll mention it in a studied legal argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ytseman3
Here's a simple idea judge. Make Motorola and all the other iPhone copy cats pay out the ass. That will promote.... wait for it..... THEIR OWN INNOVATIONS!!!! Why is it ok for these other companies to copy Apples hard work and research?? Why should they get a free ride? Oh poor Motorola will be devastated if the ruling is in Apple's favor, well maybe they should have thought about that before they turned on their photo copiers and blatantly ripped off someone else's ideas and innovations.
It has not yet been proven that Motorola is infringing. The relative benefits and burden need to be considered by any judge deciding upon this sort of an injunction request.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple vs Android worldwide has absolutely no bearing on the facts being placed before him and shows that he is not being impartial in reaching decisions.
Judicial economy is always a factor when judges make decisions on procedural matters. Piecemeal litigation is discouraged. If there is a procedure which will decide things once and for all, in general, it is seen as preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle
So you believe that his view that because it would be better for customers buying Motorola phones that Apple should be forced to license technology they created to differentiate their products and patented to protect to their competitors.
I have seen no firm evidence that this is "his view".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There is a legal method for forcing the licensing of a patent without the IP holder's approval, tho it's rarely used in the US.
"Compulsory Licensing" has historically been called upon for specific pharmaceutical patents or as a cure in anti-trust cases. It's been in the news fairly recently with both India and China announcing their intent to make greater use of it. Personally I would not be shocked to see it ordered in some upcoming US mobile patent case if some of these fairly broad/vague patents continue to be used as concrete walls to restrict competition rather than operating as gates. Whether it would hold up with SCOTUS is a great question that I hope would get answered someday soon.
Compulsory licensing is sometimes included as an ingredient in Patent Reform. But it would take new legislation. No judge has the ability to write new legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Where's the "catastrophe"?
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer.
So where's the "catastrophe"?
The grant of an injunction is what was referred to as a catastrophe. Not the payment of royalties. There is no means for him to order that royalties be paid. That is why he is encouraging the parties to put in place the deal - to avoid the catastrophe.