Oh yea? Why? Because you're not happy with the outcome?: All things point to it being very unlikely, especially given Posner's turnover rate (extremely low)
Utter nonsense, call a waambulance.
LOL, sure. That's some RDF you've got going there, what kind of smokes are available inside?
Your flippant responses to a substantive set of points -- quite aside from whether the points are right or not -- betrays the silliness and small-mindedness on the other side of the debate.
There's no debate here people. Unless you're really that good in this kind of matter which means you won't be the kind of people who'd waste time posting here. I know I've no expertise to judge on this matter myself, and I doubt anyone here (pro ruling or not) has the ability to do so.
There's no debate here people. Unless you're really that good in this kind of matter which means you won't be the kind of people who'd waste time posting here. I know I've no expertise to judge on this matter myself, and I doubt anyone here (pro ruling or not) has the ability to do so.
Here I'll break it down, this Posner guy is saying it's ok to steal from someone who's rich because unless you steal everything, at the end of the day they are still rich and can buy anything they want so no damage has been done.
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.
Others have addressed your first points. As to the last point, it took the Federal Circuits 5.5 months to decide from Judge Koh’s denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Actually, they didn't. Several people threw out ad hominem attacks and a few others threw out totally nonsensical comments, but no one addressed the substance of my comments.
Here I'll break it down, this Posner guy is saying it's ok to steal from someone who's rich because unless you steal everything, at the end of the day they are still rich and can buy anything they want so no damage has been done.
Can you quote the language from his decision that supports your contention? I read it, and I must have missed that part.
Here I'll break it down, this Posner guy is saying it's ok to steal from someone who's rich because unless you steal everything, at the end of the day they are still rich and can buy anything they want so no damage has been done.
Not even 'no', but 'less than they (subjective they and subjective amounts) should care about'. And that's even more sickening.
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.
OK. Now, by the same logic, since you and all the other Apple haters do not have experience in running a multibillion dollar company, no one should believe any of your whining complaints against Apple or Apple products.
So can we count on you to disappear from this forum or, at least, to stop second guessing Apple?
OK. Now, by the same logic, since you and all the other Apple haters do not have experience in running a multibillion dollar company, no one should believe any of your whining complaints against Apple or Apple products.
So can we count on you to disappear from this forum or, at least, to stop second guessing Apple?
I will believe Posner before I will believe someone with no credentials at all. That is not a reason to do what you propose.
No, you're ConradJoe, Zither Zather Zuzz, and Hyram Gestan.
Your argument, by default, has no weight. You are a multi-repeat offender troll who we will chase and ban to the ends of the Earth. Best part is, you'll never know when it's coming. You'll wake up one morning, spit out your cereal, and log on to find that yet another account is banned. You'll never be able to establish a presence here, because you'll always be outed as soon as you've created a new account and banned before you can get enough posts to be seen as legitimate.
ROTFLMAO. This troll can't even get his second grade taunts right.
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you."
Judge Posner's actions over the last month or so have seemed like a long cycle of "I'm sick of seeing these guys in my court, what is the next step in getting them out of it". Cut down the number of claims you all are arguing over. Why are you filing all these motions (when there is nothing against the law about their actions). You guys have lots of money, you don't look too hurt, game over. This doesn't look like legal deliberation to me.
PS No I'm not a lawyer, but that is the impression I get from reading lots of articles about the case from a variety of websites.
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you."
You missed the point - instead of the common 2nd grade taunt that my attacks would bounce off him and stick to me, he got it backwards - all of his taunts bounce off me and stick to him.
He's apparently not even as bright as the average 2nd grader.
Judge Posner's actions over the last month or so have seemed like a long cycle of "I'm sick of seeing these guys in my court, what is the next step in getting them out of it". Cut down the number of claims you all are arguing over. Why are you filing all these motions (when there is nothing against the law about their actions). You guys have lots of money, you don't look too hurt, game over. This doesn't look like legal deliberation to me.
PS No I'm not a lawyer, but that is the impression I get from reading lots of articles about the case from a variety of websites.
It actually goes beyond that. Posner has an aversion to patents and has publicly stated that patent owners should not have exclusivity (discussed at length with references in FOSS patents). That goes contrary not only to legislation, but to the Constitution. All of his actions in this case make sense with that background. He is doing what he can to weaken any patents enough to make them useless.
He's entitled to his own opinion, of course, but when he thinks that his opinion trumps actual law as well as the Constitution, he's wrong.
You missed the point - instead of the common 2nd grade taunt that my attacks would bounce off him and stick to me, he got it backwards - all of his taunts bounce off me and stick to him.
He's apparently not even as bright as the average 2nd grader.
You missed the point - instead of the common 2nd grade taunt that my attacks would bounce off him and stick to me, he got it backwards - all of his taunts bounce off me and stick to him.
No, I reversed it intentionally. Combine the reversed adage with the "you win" statement, think about it, and if you still can't figure it out I'll explain it in detail.
No. On second thought, I'll be content with whatever you conclude.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Oh yea? Why? Because you're not happy with the outcome?: All things point to it being very unlikely, especially given Posner's turnover rate (extremely low)
Utter nonsense, call a waambulance.
LOL, sure. That's some RDF you've got going there, what kind of smokes are available inside?
Your flippant responses to a substantive set of points -- quite aside from whether the points are right or not -- betrays the silliness and small-mindedness on the other side of the debate.
There's no debate here people. Unless you're really that good in this kind of matter which means you won't be the kind of people who'd waste time posting here. I know I've no expertise to judge on this matter myself, and I doubt anyone here (pro ruling or not) has the ability to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
There's no debate here people. Unless you're really that good in this kind of matter which means you won't be the kind of people who'd waste time posting here. I know I've no expertise to judge on this matter myself, and I doubt anyone here (pro ruling or not) has the ability to do so.
Here I'll break it down, this Posner guy is saying it's ok to steal from someone who's rich because unless you steal everything, at the end of the day they are still rich and can buy anything they want so no damage has been done.
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.
Others have addressed your first points. As to the last point, it took the Federal Circuits 5.5 months to decide from Judge Koh’s denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.Actually, they didn't. Several people threw out ad hominem attacks and a few others threw out totally nonsensical comments, but no one addressed the substance of my comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Here I'll break it down, this Posner guy is saying it's ok to steal from someone who's rich because unless you steal everything, at the end of the day they are still rich and can buy anything they want so no damage has been done.
Can you quote the language from his decision that supports your contention? I read it, and I must have missed that part.
Not even 'no', but 'less than they (subjective they and subjective amounts) should care about'. And that's even more sickening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not even 'no', but 'less than they (subjective they and subjective amounts) should care about'. And that's even more sickening.
Not at all Skil. They just lost because they didn't have what they thought they had.
OK. Now, by the same logic, since you and all the other Apple haters do not have experience in running a multibillion dollar company, no one should believe any of your whining complaints against Apple or Apple products.
So can we count on you to disappear from this forum or, at least, to stop second guessing Apple?
He's on his fourth account, so I doubt that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK. Now, by the same logic, since you and all the other Apple haters do not have experience in running a multibillion dollar company, no one should believe any of your whining complaints against Apple or Apple products.
So can we count on you to disappear from this forum or, at least, to stop second guessing Apple?
I will believe Posner before I will believe someone with no credentials at all. That is not a reason to do what you propose.
Similarly, I believe Apple before I believe someone with no credentials at all. So are you and your Apple-hating buddies going to stop posting here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Similarly, I believe Apple before I believe someone with no credentials at all. So are you and your Apple-hating buddies going to stop posting here?
Ok, you win. I'm glue and you are rubber.
No, you're ConradJoe, Zither Zather Zuzz, and Hyram Gestan.
Your argument, by default, has no weight. You are a multi-repeat offender troll who we will chase and ban to the ends of the Earth. Best part is, you'll never know when it's coming. You'll wake up one morning, spit out your cereal, and log on to find that yet another account is banned. You'll never be able to establish a presence here, because you'll always be outed as soon as you've created a new account and banned before you can get enough posts to be seen as legitimate.
ROTFLMAO. This troll can't even get his second grade taunts right.
"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you."
Judge Posner's actions over the last month or so have seemed like a long cycle of "I'm sick of seeing these guys in my court, what is the next step in getting them out of it". Cut down the number of claims you all are arguing over. Why are you filing all these motions (when there is nothing against the law about their actions). You guys have lots of money, you don't look too hurt, game over. This doesn't look like legal deliberation to me.
PS No I'm not a lawyer, but that is the impression I get from reading lots of articles about the case from a variety of websites.
You missed the point - instead of the common 2nd grade taunt that my attacks would bounce off him and stick to me, he got it backwards - all of his taunts bounce off me and stick to him.
He's apparently not even as bright as the average 2nd grader.
It actually goes beyond that. Posner has an aversion to patents and has publicly stated that patent owners should not have exclusivity (discussed at length with references in FOSS patents). That goes contrary not only to legislation, but to the Constitution. All of his actions in this case make sense with that background. He is doing what he can to weaken any patents enough to make them useless.
He's entitled to his own opinion, of course, but when he thinks that his opinion trumps actual law as well as the Constitution, he's wrong.
I got it, I just wanted to add that fun quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You missed the point - instead of the common 2nd grade taunt that my attacks would bounce off him and stick to me, he got it backwards - all of his taunts bounce off me and stick to him.
No, I reversed it intentionally. Combine the reversed adage with the "you win" statement, think about it, and if you still can't figure it out I'll explain it in detail.
No. On second thought, I'll be content with whatever you conclude.