I just mentioned compulsory licensing a few posts back. Now TheVerge has published a short snippet of an exchange between Apple counsel and Posner:
Posner: "So would you be asking for an injunction that would give them three months to substitute real-time..."
Apple: "Exactly. We're not asking them to stop selling Android phones, we're asking them to do something that they've said they could easily do. Use their technology, not ours."
Posner: "Would you consider an ongoing royalty as a satisfactory substitute?"
Apple: "No."
Posner: "Why not?"
Apple: "The law says" that companies should not be subject to compulsory licensing. [Paraphrasing.]
Posner: "That's not what the law says. The law says that it's a type of injunctive relief."
[...]
Posner: "You can't just assume that just because someone has a patent, he has deep moral right to exclude everyone else from using it. That's why we have this principle that the equity judge can substitute a compulsory license for an injunction."
I just mentioned compulsory licensing a few posts back. Now TheVerge has published a short snippet of an exchange between Apple counsel and Posner:
Posner: "So would you be asking for an injunction that would give them three months to substitute real-time..."
Apple: "Exactly. We're not asking them to stop selling Android phones, we're asking them to do something that they've said they could easily do. Use their technology, not ours."
Posner: "Would you consider an ongoing royalty as a satisfactory substitute?"
Apple: "No."
Posner: "Why not?"
Apple: "The law says" that companies should not be subject to compulsory licensing. [Paraphrasing.]
Posner: "That's not what the law says. The law says that it's a type of injunctive relief."
[...]
Posner: "You can't just assume that just because someone has a patent, he has deep moral right to exclude everyone else from using it. That's why we have this principle that the equity judge can substitute a compulsory license for an injunction."
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.
Yeah, you'd think that Google could afford better shills.
It's not uncommom for just such an order in the case of large mergers. It prevents two or more industry-leading entities from joining forces and using their combined IP to shut out competitors. Otherwise it's been rarely used in the US, altho it's getting much more attention as a suggested and rational cure for certain patent problems over the past few years.
Posner is one of the greatest legal minds alive. You may disagree with the outcome, but you can't criticize his understanding of the law.
OK, let's extend the same logic to all the Apple-hating trolls posting here. All these people insist that they know better than Apple how hardware should be designed and what tradeoffs are acceptable. Why not tell them that they can't really criticize the most successful electronics company not he planet?
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'?
Sorry. I'm unable to respond to your last question if I accept your premise that there's no such thing.
Comments
Well here ya go!
I just mentioned compulsory licensing a few posts back. Now TheVerge has published a short snippet of an exchange between Apple counsel and Posner:
Posner: "So would you be asking for an injunction that would give them three months to substitute real-time..."
Apple: "Exactly. We're not asking them to stop selling Android phones, we're asking them to do something that they've said they could easily do. Use their technology, not ours."
Posner: "Would you consider an ongoing royalty as a satisfactory substitute?"
Apple: "No."
Posner: "Why not?"
Apple: "The law says" that companies should not be subject to compulsory licensing. [Paraphrasing.]
Posner: "That's not what the law says. The law says that it's a type of injunctive relief."
[...]
Posner: "You can't just assume that just because someone has a patent, he has deep moral right to exclude everyone else from using it. That's why we have this principle that the equity judge can substitute a compulsory license for an injunction."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/20/3101619/judge-posner-apple-motorola-injunction-hearing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Well here ya go!
I just mentioned compulsory licensing a few posts back. Now TheVerge has published a short snippet of an exchange between Apple counsel and Posner:
Posner: "So would you be asking for an injunction that would give them three months to substitute real-time..."
Apple: "Exactly. We're not asking them to stop selling Android phones, we're asking them to do something that they've said they could easily do. Use their technology, not ours."
Posner: "Would you consider an ongoing royalty as a satisfactory substitute?"
Apple: "No."
Posner: "Why not?"
Apple: "The law says" that companies should not be subject to compulsory licensing. [Paraphrasing.]
Posner: "That's not what the law says. The law says that it's a type of injunctive relief."
[...]
Posner: "You can't just assume that just because someone has a patent, he has deep moral right to exclude everyone else from using it. That's why we have this principle that the equity judge can substitute a compulsory license for an injunction."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/20/3101619/judge-posner-apple-motorola-injunction-hearing
I seem to have been incorrect concerning the need for legislation in order to impose such an order. I didn;t realize it was currently available,
Yeah, you'd think that Google could afford better shills.
It's not uncommom for just such an order in the case of large mergers. It prevents two or more industry-leading entities from joining forces and using their combined IP to shut out competitors. Otherwise it's been rarely used in the US, altho it's getting much more attention as a suggested and rational cure for certain patent problems over the past few years.
OK, let's extend the same logic to all the Apple-hating trolls posting here. All these people insist that they know better than Apple how hardware should be designed and what tradeoffs are acceptable. Why not tell them that they can't really criticize the most successful electronics company not he planet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yeah, you'd think that Google could afford better shills.
Oh, you and Anonymouse are just jealous that I get so many things right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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'?
Sorry. I'm unable to respond to your last question if I accept your premise that there's no such thing.