Sure it does. Look at how quickly they overturned Koh's opinion.
For clarity, the appeals court didn't entirely overturn Koh's opinion in the Apple/Samsung preliminary injunction hearing. They mostly affirmed her decision, agreeing with her reasoning with regard to Samsung's smartphones, sending only the Galaxy Tab back for reconsideration.
First, he considered an ongoing royalty, but didn't order one. So he acknowledged that Motorola infringed, but didn't do a darned thing about it. Second, ongoing royalty is only appropriate when an injunction causes irreparable harm to the public or serious harm to the infringer over a trivial issue. Apple did not request an immediate injunction. They requested an injunction which took effect after 4 months, giving Motorola time to fix the infringement (since Motorola stated that it was a trivial matter that could easily be fixed).
So, again, Posner has contradicted himself. On one hand, by arguing for an ongoing royalty, he is stating that the infringement is over a minor matter which is only a small component of the phone. OTOH, he dismisses Apple's suggestion that Motorola be given 4 months to fix the problem out of hand. So what is it? Is it a minor, easily remedied problem or is it instrumental to the device and can't be fixed?
Then, of course, is the issue where he argues for ongoing royalty in lieu of injunction, but doesn't order any ongoing royalty.
Sure it does. Look at how quickly they overturned Koh's opinion.
While long I really think you need to read the entire opinion and order, as I have just done, because you are taking grossly extrapolated points by AI and trying to make arguments that already have been answered and explained by the judge. You're also missing the point, or rather the judge's, entirely.
Oh so you're now a judge and know more than one most respected judges in the country. Stop.
Given that the original poster does not have a law degree, not even one from the worst, crappiest law school in the entire country, and Posner graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, somehow I think that I'll believe Posner.
2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument.
He never "admitted" anything about the patents. However, he said that even IF the patents are valid, and even IF the patents were infringed, Apple failed to show any damages. Did you read his opinion? Did you understand it?
Here's where he discusses what you said above:
Quote:
Any intimation that proof of infringement is alone enough
to warrant a remedial order (as when Dow posits an “obligation
to award some amount of damages” if infringement is proved)
was scotched by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391–92 (2006). And with specific
reference to calculating a royalty, Dow itself instructs district
courts not pull the royalty out of a hat but instead “to consider
the so-called Georgia-Pacific factors in detail, and award such No. 1:11-cv-08540 13
reasonable royalties as the record evidence will support.” 341
F.3d at 1382 (citation omitted); see also Lucent Technologies, Inc.
v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Parental Guide of
Texas, Inc. v. Thomson, Inc., 446 F.3d 1265, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Would you say that the Supreme Court was wrong? Did you read that decision?>
While long I really think you need to read the entire opinion and order, as I have just done, because you are taking grossly extrapolated points by AI and trying to make arguments that already have been answered and explained by the judge. You're also missing the point, or rather the judge's, entirely.
The point is that Apple could prove no damages, even IF they could prove that their patents are valid, and even IF they could prove that their patents had been infringed.
Quote:
Apple has not presented admissible evidence that the GeorgiaPacific factors support its damages claim.
[quote name="niji" url="/t/150864/beginning-of-the-end-of-jobs-era-litigation#post_2132978"]Cook is too smart to let these kinds of lawsuits go any further than they have. Cook will choose to litigate those that are meaningful.[/QUOTE]
And the lawsuits currently happening ARE meaningful.
[QUOTE]apple will need to show a great amount of actual damage before it will win many more lawsuits like this.[/QUOTE]
Oh so you're now a judge and know more than one most respected judges in the country. Stop.
I think it's time to invoke Godwin's Law, but with a little twist.
Nearly everyone sitting at the table during the Wannsee Conference on 20th January 1942 was a distinguished expert in their field. Nearly all held the title of "Doctor" (the European variant of that designation at the time), mostly in the field of law.
Wilhelm Stuckart, for example, was a distinguished lawyer and judge, who held a doctorate in his field. He was noted for his brilliance in the area of public administration. As a member of the NSDAP, and in light of the sociopolitical setting in which
he operated, his contribution to the Nuremberg Laws was enlightened, particularly given the general aims of the Nazi regime. Stuckart was, arguably, a moderate who by anyone's estimation seemed out of place at that meeting. He wasn't the only one, though.
Yet, he too, along with the other respected, well-credientialed experts present at that meeting, in the span of but a few hours endorsed officially (but off the record, as required by Heydrich) the Nazi plan for genocide, knowing full well what that meant. This is part of the "banality of evil" that Hannah Arendt spoke about. We're not just talking about mistaken legal rulings or short-sighted judgments that are easily actionable via the appellate process. This is the wholesale transferral of valuable expertise to the service of evil.
Of course, Posner is *not* a high-ranking Nazi official, nor any sort of participant in a fascist regime. It would be nothing short of ridiculous to make such a claim. He is by all accounts an enlightened (at least professionally) servant of a democratic state, and again, by all accounts a man of upstanding moral character, who would very likely fight injustice even if it weren't his occupation. Probably a good friend and wonderful family-man as well.
But the same thing could have been said of any number of well-credentialed, well-meaning "experts" who became a part of the most destructive political regime of our time.
So let's respect expertise. But let's not be blinded by it.
[LIST=1] [*] [*] [*] [/LIST] The judge's "point" is that he rejects the tetimony of Apple's expert witness (the one that he allowed, not the ones that he barred) as having given an insufficiently detailed definition of the amount of the proposed damages, and therefore dismisses the case "with prejudice", disallowing a retrial and any attempt to further clarify the exact amount of damages. He refuses to specifically acknowledge that infringements did occur, stating, in effct, that even if they did the lack of specificity would doom the trial.
"Heavy handed" would be an understatement of the essence of his judgement.
The judge's "point" is that he rejects the tetimony of Apple's expert witness (the one that he allowed, not the ones that he barred) as having given an insufficiently detailed definition of the amount of the proposed damages, and therefore dismisses the case "with prejudice", disallowing a retrial and any attempt to further clarify the exact amount of damages. He refuses to specifically acknowledge that infringements did occur, stating, in effct, that even if they did the lack of specificity would doom the trial.
"Heavy handed" would be an understatement of the essence of his judgement.
I'm not sure what you mean by heavy-handed. Can you be more specific?
Do you mean that his decision was not well-reasoned?
They failed here to do so. That is the entire point of the dismissal.
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
It isn't all bad news for Apple, given that Motorola first sued Apple and Apple retaliated by countersuing Motorola, so you could argue that this is a (sort of) victory for Apple.
The only prejudice I see here has come from Posner, no matter how well or highly he is regarded. He comes across as very arrogant and anti-Apple.
His job is to judge according to the law. Not to be "pro" or "anti" anything. Just because he ruled against Apple, it does not mean he's anti-Apple. He's simply provided a legal judgement that doesn't suit Apple.
So let's respect expertise. But let's not be blinded by it.
Who's being blind when people tarnish the judge's reputation and question his expertise based on a ruling they don't like rather than providing actual legal counter-arguments?
You have people here, who know scant little about law, arguing the judge is wrong, simply because he ruled against Apple.
Tell me, had he ruled the other way, how many here would be crowing about how this well respected judge ruled for Apple? Would you still be saying that people should only "respect" his expertise and not be "blinded by it"?
For the most part, I agree with you line. But, I find it incredible that people think that being an Apple fan makes them better qualified to provide legal opinions than a Harvard trained Federal Circuit judge with decades of experience. I wonder how many of these folks would over rule the engineer or architect who designed their houses, since being an Apple fan obviously makes you an expert on good design?
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
If there's merit to your argument, it'll come out in the appeal.
That said, Posner has a pretty good record with his rulings. So good luck with that.
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
They failed in the opinion of the judge. And that is the only failure that matters.
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
This isn't the OJ trail, his is the only one that matters.
Quote:
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
That's quite a case of denial you've got there, and it's still obvious you haven't read the decision. The judge rejected it because it didn't meet the legal qualifications for assessing damages. The same went for Motorola by the way. This has been something he's asked for very publicly numerous times. Everything Posner said is explained and documented with references. The only demonstration of bias here is yours.
Yeah, I don't get it. To say that simply because you are a large company with the majority of marketshare means that you can take the hit just seems ridiculous. As much as I don't want a monopoly, if the technology is patented and designed by someone else, credit is due where it has been earned. Apple has obviously lost marketshare in the smartphone segment by and large due to Android rip-offs who couldn't think up their own metaphors for a touch-based UI. If you liken the iPhone's advent to that of automobiles it would be like saying that even though Apple designed and patented 300 technologies therein and took a lion's share of the market due to the usefulness and sharp design that somehow horse and buggy salesmen should get to copy it simply because it would otherwise be bad for their business. It's not a perfect analogy, but basically without copying Apple's ideas the companies (and Google) would have had to do their own R&D and be left to selling horses and buggies until they got a truly original product. so much for the free market. As much as I don't care for the metaphor used in mobile Windows OS I can respect the fact that they took a novel approach to the touch-based OS. Granted, it reminds me of some traffic sign designer who had a hand in the tile development but at least it's not a hack job of copy and paste as was the case with Android.
Who's being blind when people tarnish the judge's reputation and question his expertise based on a ruling they don't like rather than providing actual legal counter-arguments?
You have people here, who know scant little about law, arguing the judge is wrong, simply because he ruled against Apple.
Tell me, had he ruled the other way, how many here would be crowing about how this well respected judge ruled for Apple? Would you still be saying that people should only "respect" his expertise and not be "blinded by it"?
For the most part, I agree with you line. But, I find it incredible that people think that being an Apple fan makes them better qualified to provide legal opinions than a Harvard trained Federal Circuit judge with decades of experience. I wonder how many of these folks would over rule the engineer or architect who designed their houses, since being an Apple fan obviously makes you an expert on good design?
I have no disagreement with what you're saying, though I doubt opinions on an Apple fansite will have any effect on the judge's reputation. Opinions from his own peers will, but not ours.
The point is, the judge made a ruling and the ball is in Apple's court. To be fair, and to give your point even more credence, I'd be more interested in paying attention to Apple's next move rather than questioning the judge's decision.
The point is, the judge made a ruling and the ball is in Apple's court. To be fair, and to give your point even more credence, I'd be more interested in paying attention to Apple's next move rather than questioning the judge's decision.
Apple has only two choices: Appeal, or don't. I suspect that they will appeal.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure it does. Look at how quickly they overturned Koh's opinion.
For clarity, the appeals court didn't entirely overturn Koh's opinion in the Apple/Samsung preliminary injunction hearing. They mostly affirmed her decision, agreeing with her reasoning with regard to Samsung's smartphones, sending only the Galaxy Tab back for reconsideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Actually, he did.
First, he considered an ongoing royalty, but didn't order one. So he acknowledged that Motorola infringed, but didn't do a darned thing about it. Second, ongoing royalty is only appropriate when an injunction causes irreparable harm to the public or serious harm to the infringer over a trivial issue. Apple did not request an immediate injunction. They requested an injunction which took effect after 4 months, giving Motorola time to fix the infringement (since Motorola stated that it was a trivial matter that could easily be fixed).
So, again, Posner has contradicted himself. On one hand, by arguing for an ongoing royalty, he is stating that the infringement is over a minor matter which is only a small component of the phone. OTOH, he dismisses Apple's suggestion that Motorola be given 4 months to fix the problem out of hand. So what is it? Is it a minor, easily remedied problem or is it instrumental to the device and can't be fixed?
Then, of course, is the issue where he argues for ongoing royalty in lieu of injunction, but doesn't order any ongoing royalty.
Sure it does. Look at how quickly they overturned Koh's opinion.
While long I really think you need to read the entire opinion and order, as I have just done, because you are taking grossly extrapolated points by AI and trying to make arguments that already have been answered and explained by the judge. You're also missing the point, or rather the judge's, entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Oh so you're now a judge and know more than one most respected judges in the country. Stop.
Given that the original poster does not have a law degree, not even one from the worst, crappiest law school in the entire country, and Posner graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, somehow I think that I'll believe Posner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
2. He then dismisses the patent case. How can he do that after admitting that the patents are valid? He basically contradicted his own argument.
He never "admitted" anything about the patents. However, he said that even IF the patents are valid, and even IF the patents were infringed, Apple failed to show any damages. Did you read his opinion? Did you understand it?
Here's where he discusses what you said above:
Quote:
Any intimation that proof of infringement is alone enough
to warrant a remedial order (as when Dow posits an “obligation
to award some amount of damages” if infringement is proved)
was scotched by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391–92 (2006). And with specific
reference to calculating a royalty, Dow itself instructs district
courts not pull the royalty out of a hat but instead “to consider
the so-called Georgia-Pacific factors in detail, and award such No. 1:11-cv-08540 13
reasonable royalties as the record evidence will support.” 341
F.3d at 1382 (citation omitted); see also Lucent Technologies, Inc.
v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Parental Guide of
Texas, Inc. v. Thomson, Inc., 446 F.3d 1265, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Would you say that the Supreme Court was wrong? Did you read that decision?>
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
While long I really think you need to read the entire opinion and order, as I have just done, because you are taking grossly extrapolated points by AI and trying to make arguments that already have been answered and explained by the judge. You're also missing the point, or rather the judge's, entirely.
The point is that Apple could prove no damages, even IF they could prove that their patents are valid, and even IF they could prove that their patents had been infringed.
Quote:
Apple has not presented admissible evidence that the GeorgiaPacific factors support its damages claim.
Cook will choose to litigate those that are meaningful.[/QUOTE]
And the lawsuits currently happening ARE meaningful.
[QUOTE]apple will need to show a great amount of actual damage before it will win many more lawsuits like this.[/QUOTE]
No, they only have to show damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Oh so you're now a judge and know more than one most respected judges in the country. Stop.
I think it's time to invoke Godwin's Law, but with a little twist.
Nearly everyone sitting at the table during the Wannsee Conference on 20th January 1942 was a distinguished expert in their field. Nearly all held the title of "Doctor" (the European variant of that designation at the time), mostly in the field of law.
Wilhelm Stuckart, for example, was a distinguished lawyer and judge, who held a doctorate in his field. He was noted for his brilliance in the area of public administration. As a member of the NSDAP, and in light of the sociopolitical setting in which
he operated, his contribution to the Nuremberg Laws was enlightened, particularly given the general aims of the Nazi regime. Stuckart was, arguably, a moderate who by anyone's estimation seemed out of place at that meeting. He wasn't the only one, though.
Yet, he too, along with the other respected, well-credientialed experts present at that meeting, in the span of but a few hours endorsed officially (but off the record, as required by Heydrich) the Nazi plan for genocide, knowing full well what that meant. This is part of the "banality of evil" that Hannah Arendt spoke about. We're not just talking about mistaken legal rulings or short-sighted judgments that are easily actionable via the appellate process. This is the wholesale transferral of valuable expertise to the service of evil.
Of course, Posner is *not* a high-ranking Nazi official, nor any sort of participant in a fascist regime. It would be nothing short of ridiculous to make such a claim. He is by all accounts an enlightened (at least professionally) servant of a democratic state, and again, by all accounts a man of upstanding moral character, who would very likely fight injustice even if it weren't his occupation. Probably a good friend and wonderful family-man as well.
But the same thing could have been said of any number of well-credentialed, well-meaning "experts" who became a part of the most destructive political regime of our time.
So let's respect expertise. But let's not be blinded by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, they only have to show damage.
They failed here to do so. That is the entire point of the dismissal.
[*]
[*]
[*]
[/LIST]
The judge's "point" is that he rejects the tetimony of Apple's expert witness (the one that he allowed, not the ones that he barred) as having given an insufficiently detailed definition of the amount of the proposed damages, and therefore dismisses the case "with prejudice", disallowing a retrial and any attempt to further clarify the exact amount of damages. He refuses to specifically acknowledge that infringements did occur, stating, in effct, that even if they did the lack of specificity would doom the trial.
"Heavy handed" would be an understatement of the essence of his judgement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
The judge's "point" is that he rejects the tetimony of Apple's expert witness (the one that he allowed, not the ones that he barred) as having given an insufficiently detailed definition of the amount of the proposed damages, and therefore dismisses the case "with prejudice", disallowing a retrial and any attempt to further clarify the exact amount of damages. He refuses to specifically acknowledge that infringements did occur, stating, in effct, that even if they did the lack of specificity would doom the trial.
"Heavy handed" would be an understatement of the essence of his judgement.
I'm not sure what you mean by heavy-handed. Can you be more specific?
Do you mean that his decision was not well-reasoned?
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip
It isn't all bad news for Apple, given that Motorola first sued Apple and Apple retaliated by countersuing Motorola, so you could argue that this is a (sort of) victory for Apple.
The only prejudice I see here has come from Posner, no matter how well or highly he is regarded. He comes across as very arrogant and anti-Apple.
His job is to judge according to the law. Not to be "pro" or "anti" anything. Just because he ruled against Apple, it does not mean he's anti-Apple. He's simply provided a legal judgement that doesn't suit Apple.
Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
So let's respect expertise. But let's not be blinded by it.
Who's being blind when people tarnish the judge's reputation and question his expertise based on a ruling they don't like rather than providing actual legal counter-arguments?
You have people here, who know scant little about law, arguing the judge is wrong, simply because he ruled against Apple.
Tell me, had he ruled the other way, how many here would be crowing about how this well respected judge ruled for Apple? Would you still be saying that people should only "respect" his expertise and not be "blinded by it"?
For the most part, I agree with you line. But, I find it incredible that people think that being an Apple fan makes them better qualified to provide legal opinions than a Harvard trained Federal Circuit judge with decades of experience. I wonder how many of these folks would over rule the engineer or architect who designed their houses, since being an Apple fan obviously makes you an expert on good design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
If there's merit to your argument, it'll come out in the appeal.
That said, Posner has a pretty good record with his rulings. So good luck with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM
Posner is a respected judge.
That doesn't mean he's infallible or wasn't in over his head on this case (my opinion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
They failed in the opinion of the judge. And that is the only failure that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They failed to do so in the opinion of the judge. That's a different thing altogether.
This isn't the OJ trail, his is the only one that matters.
Quote:
Apple presented expert testimony on the damages. The judge rejected it simply because he didn't like it, not because the other side refuted it in any way. Yet more demonstration of bias on the judge's part.
That's quite a case of denial you've got there, and it's still obvious you haven't read the decision. The judge rejected it because it didn't meet the legal qualifications for assessing damages. The same went for Motorola by the way. This has been something he's asked for very publicly numerous times. Everything Posner said is explained and documented with references. The only demonstration of bias here is yours.
Yeah, I don't get it. To say that simply because you are a large company with the majority of marketshare means that you can take the hit just seems ridiculous. As much as I don't want a monopoly, if the technology is patented and designed by someone else, credit is due where it has been earned. Apple has obviously lost marketshare in the smartphone segment by and large due to Android rip-offs who couldn't think up their own metaphors for a touch-based UI. If you liken the iPhone's advent to that of automobiles it would be like saying that even though Apple designed and patented 300 technologies therein and took a lion's share of the market due to the usefulness and sharp design that somehow horse and buggy salesmen should get to copy it simply because it would otherwise be bad for their business. It's not a perfect analogy, but basically without copying Apple's ideas the companies (and Google) would have had to do their own R&D and be left to selling horses and buggies until they got a truly original product. so much for the free market. As much as I don't care for the metaphor used in mobile Windows OS I can respect the fact that they took a novel approach to the touch-based OS. Granted, it reminds me of some traffic sign designer who had a hand in the tile development but at least it's not a hack job of copy and paste as was the case with Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Who's being blind when people tarnish the judge's reputation and question his expertise based on a ruling they don't like rather than providing actual legal counter-arguments?
You have people here, who know scant little about law, arguing the judge is wrong, simply because he ruled against Apple.
Tell me, had he ruled the other way, how many here would be crowing about how this well respected judge ruled for Apple? Would you still be saying that people should only "respect" his expertise and not be "blinded by it"?
For the most part, I agree with you line. But, I find it incredible that people think that being an Apple fan makes them better qualified to provide legal opinions than a Harvard trained Federal Circuit judge with decades of experience. I wonder how many of these folks would over rule the engineer or architect who designed their houses, since being an Apple fan obviously makes you an expert on good design?
I have no disagreement with what you're saying, though I doubt opinions on an Apple fansite will have any effect on the judge's reputation. Opinions from his own peers will, but not ours.
The point is, the judge made a ruling and the ball is in Apple's court. To be fair, and to give your point even more credence, I'd be more interested in paying attention to Apple's next move rather than questioning the judge's decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
The point is, the judge made a ruling and the ball is in Apple's court. To be fair, and to give your point even more credence, I'd be more interested in paying attention to Apple's next move rather than questioning the judge's decision.
Apple has only two choices: Appeal, or don't. I suspect that they will appeal.