Google calls Apple 'unwilling licensee' in bid for injunction over FRAND patent violations

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 76
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Everything else is irrelevant.

    Depends on what your desired point is, and how shallow it is.

    Was Motorola first to file? Yes. Did Motorola initiate these patent wars? No.

    It's as if the US had found out that the Japanese attack carriers were about to launch on Hawaii, and preemptively got to them first. The Japanese would still have been the instigators of the attack.
  • Reply 42 of 76


    ^ Are you actually claiming these patent wars were started by Apple? 

  • Reply 43 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kdarling wrote: »
    Depends on what your desired point is, and how shallow it is.

    Was Motorola first to file? Yes. Did Motorola initiate these patent wars? No.

    It's as if the US had found out that the Japanese attack carriers were about to launch on Hawaii, and preemptively got to them first. The Japanese would still have been the instigators of the attack.

    Why does everything you post have to sound so fucking smarmy? It would be great if you could simply be direct and accurate without trying to weasel your way into blaming Apple for everything. And you wonder why you sound like paid shill...
  • Reply 44 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    But it's more fun to watch him keep digging his hole deeper - and then burying him with his own links.

    To each their own but I much prefer the quick kill.
  • Reply 45 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,239member


    JR, as I predicted you've gone on to change the subject.


     


    In the case heard by Judge Posner in US District court, the subject of the thread, Apple sued first just as I said. FACT. Motorola then countersued just as I said. FACT. Both cases were combined into one and heard by Judge Posner just as I said, FACT. Both Apple and Motorola had their competing IP claims dismissed just as I said. FACT. Both were admonished by the same court just as I said. FACT. I claimed nothing else.


     


    You felt the need to respond and told me I wasn't exactly right, that Motorola lost and Apple won. Your claim was wrong. That you'd like to start a new discussion about who fired the first volley back in the day doesn't change the case heard by Judge Posner we were discussing. To refresh your memory this is where you started:


     


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156501/google-calls-apple-unwilling-licensee-in-bid-for-injunction-over-frand-patent-violations#post_2294788


     


    In summation here's where you said I was wrong:


    JR: "You (GG) implied that Apple and Google both were equally slapped by the judge, but that's not the case."


    You're wrong. Both received lectures from Judge Pender. In at least Apple's case more than once.


     


    JR: "Nor is it a draw."


    You're wrong again. Both cases were dismissed without a trial, making it a draw.



    JR: "Motorola sued. The judge rejected a bunch of claims, and eventually, Motorola lost. Apple won.


    Wrong yet again. Apple sued. Moto sued too. Neither "lost" nor "won"...


    ...or both lost and won if you wish to look at it that way instead. Either way a draw.


     


    JR: "It's not a draw when the plaintiff walks away with nothing and the defendant doesn't have to pay any damages."


    They were both plaintiffs and both walked away with nothing


     


    JR: "That's a pure win for the defendant".


    They were both defendants too and so by your definition both "won" (tho I'd disagree).



    JR: "And when you add in all the judge's specific comments about Google/Motorola regarding FRAND abuse, it was a sound smackdown for Google."


    Google wasn't a party to the action. Both Moto and Apple got a "smackdown" by Judge Posner.


     


     


    Now you've introduced another case altogether in the discussion, an administrative ITC action that I suppose you had hoped would disguise how wrong you were? Even that doesn't help make you any more correct. Fine to talk about it too if you want but it had nothing to do with the settlement of this case, nor anything you or I were originally debating.


     


    So it's simple if you read what you wrote. You were wrong on several counts. I was right on each of them. You'd have been better off not replying in the first place.

  • Reply 46 of 76
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Why does everything you post have to sound so fucking smarmy? It would be great if you could simply be direct and accurate without trying to weasel your way into blaming Apple for everything. And you wonder why you sound like paid shill...

    I was being direct and accurate until you came back with a childish "everything else was irrelevant", which is not true at all unless you're being "fucking smarmy" yourself, trying to "weasel your way" into absolving Apple of any responsibility.

    So my question to you is, why are you always so foul mouthed when caught in a mistake? It's like a poker tell. You instantly accuse the other person of exactly what you yourself are guilty of.
  • Reply 47 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    ^ Are you actually claiming these patent wars were started by Apple? 

    Of course. Haven't you noticed that KDarling sees every problem in the world as Apple's fault and all of Apple's competitors are angels sent by God, himself.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    JR, as I predicted you've gone on to change the subject.

    In the case heard by Judge Pender in US District court, the subject of the thread, Apple sued first just as I said. FACT. Motorola then countersued just as I said. .

    ROTLFMAO.

    YOUR OWN FLIPPING LINK says that Motorola filed first in the case we're discussing.

    As expected, you simply can't stand the truth.
  • Reply 48 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kdarling wrote: »
    I was being direct and accurate until you came back with a childish "everything else was irrelevant", which is not true at all unless you're being "fucking smarmy" yourself, trying to "weasel your way" into absolving Apple of any responsibility.

    So my question to you is, why are you always so foul mouthed when caught in a mistake? It's like a poker tell. You instantly accuse the other person of exactly what you yourself are guilty of.

    1) No you weren't.

    2) You added bullshit to what should have been a simple reply.

    3) I don't like when people can't be direct nor honest, which includes you adding a shitload of unrelated crap to hide your mistake. Be a man! Own up to it.

    4) Good try¡
  • Reply 49 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    YOUR OWN FLIPPING LINK says that Motorola filed first in the case we're discussing.

    As expected, you simply can't stand the truth.

    I'm not going to hunt down the source but I'll ask: Was the original statement regarding Moto not suing first in this particular case or that Moto had never once initiated a lawsuit? It seems to me it should be pretty cut and dry.
  • Reply 50 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,239member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Of course. Haven't you noticed that KDarling sees every problem in the world as Apple's fault and all of Apple's competitors are angels sent by God, himself.

    ROTLFMAO.



    YOUR OWN FLIPPING LINK says that Motorola filed first in the case we're discussing.



    As expected, you simply can't stand the truth.


    You're choosing to misinterpret that link, which doesn't at all disagree with anything I wrote. Your mixing two entirely separate actions and venues, one administrative at the ITC and this one in a US District Court. Moto did not file first "in the case we were discussing" which was heard in the US District Court with Judge Posner, as you're well aware. . .


    or should be if you really read the links.


     


    You on the other hand are apparently going to try and avoid ownership of your numerous incorrect claims made. If you'd still insist on agreeing to disagree about who filed first (which you will) that still leaves another five incorrect statements you managed to make in one single post, noted again for you if you've forgotten in the past hour. 


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156501/google-calls-apple-unwilling-licensee-in-bid-for-injunction-over-frand-patent-violations/40#post_2294938


     


    Perhaps you'd like to re-assert those same points to prove how wrong I was? Of course you won't. You were wrong about each and every one of them. The truth and you appear to be estranged. 

  • Reply 51 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,239member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I'm not going to hunt down the source but I'll ask: Was the original statement regarding Moto not suing first in this particular case or that Moto had never once initiated a lawsuit? It seems to me it should be pretty cut and dry.


    It had to do with this case, filed in US District Court so yes it is cut and dried. There was never any prior discussion of any other actions in any other venues, nor should there have been any expected.


     


    Nonetheless I expect JR to cling to it tighter than a warm blanket in January as it's his only opportunity left for any redemption at all. Each of his other five claims were already shown to be flawed.

  • Reply 52 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    It had to do with this particular case, filed in US District Court. It is cut and dried.

    Can you quote the original comment? I'm renting out the Moose Lodge in Juneau, Alaska for the last Thursday of June to vote on it.
  • Reply 53 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'm not going to hunt down the source but I'll ask: Was the original statement regarding Moto not suing first in this particular case or that Moto had never once initiated a lawsuit? It seems to me it should be pretty cut and dry.

    It's really quite simple. This thread is about the ITC case. GG cited a link which was specifically about this case and he said that it somehow proved something about this case.

    The very last paragraph of the article that he cited says:
    "The ruling wraps up at least one chapter of the Apple v. Motorola saga that began when the Droid maker filed a complaint with the ITC in 2010 only to be hit shortly after with the Apple countersuit dismissed today. Both parties have the option to appeal the dismissal to a higher court but no official plans to do so have been announced."

    Note in particular the "countersuit dismissed today" part - which is a clear indication that they're talking about the case in the article he cited.

    Now, he's trying to pretend that it's not relevant and has nothing to do with the case we're discussing.

    So he was lying when he presented the link or he's lying now.
  • Reply 54 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,239member


    Yes sir. Here ya go:


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Not the least bit off topic. That's essentially what the judge told Google the last time around.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    And told Apple as well. He apparently had his fill of both of them, understanding the court was being played in a business negotiation.


     


    (To be accurate, Judge Pender's ruling was made well before Google's purchase Motorola was completed, so he never really said anything of the sort to them)



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Correction. When the plaintiff (Motorola, in this case) doesn't get what they want, it's called a 'loss'. Your silly spin notwithstanding.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Wrong.



    You implied that Apple and Google both were equally slapped by the judge, but that's not the case. Nor is it a draw.


    Since the comments revolved around the Judge (Pender) it's obvious what case we were discussing.

  • Reply 55 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I don't know. It sounds like I'll need to find myself a jury in Juneau, Alaska this Summer.
  • Reply 56 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,239member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    It's really quite simple. This thread is about the ITC case. GG cited a link which was specifically about this case and he said that it somehow proved something about this case.


    An ITC case???image Since when did Judge Posner preside over an ITC case? From the very first paragraph of this article:


     


    "Google and Motorola on Thursday entered an initial filing with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals over the dismissal of a patent suit against Apple, which saw a circuit court judge toss arguments from both parties in 2011."


     


    You've plainly outdone yourself JR, removing yourself so far from reality that no facts will be capable of pulling you back in. This thread was never anchored in an ITC case. It's been about Judge Pender and the US District Court, his comments to both parties and their appeals on his dismissals from the get-go.


     


    Perhaps it's the words that confuse you. Here's a picture from the article that started this whole thread. See if you can find the ITC identified in it:


    CAFC Logo

  • Reply 57 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    [SIZE=16px]An ITC case???[/SIZE]<img alt="1bugeye.gif" id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1363473476292_1397" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1bugeye.gif" style="line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1363473476292_1397">
     <span style="line-height:1.231;">Since when did Judge Pender preside over an ITC case? From the very first paragraph of this article:</span>

    It's really simple:

    1. This thread was about the ITC case.
    2. You said that Apple lost.
    3. I pointed out that Motorola filed first - and therefore they were the ones who lost.
    4. You said that was incorrect and that Apple had filed first.
    5. THE VERY ARTICLE YOU PRESENTED TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT said that Motorola is the one who filed.


    So either you were lying when you claimed that the link you provided was relevant or you're lying now. Which is it?
  • Reply 58 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,239member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    It's really simple:



    1. This thread was about the ITC case.

    2. You said that Apple lost.

    3. I pointed out that Motorola filed first - and therefore they were the ones who lost.

    4. You said that was incorrect and that Apple had filed first.

    5. THE VERY ARTICLE YOU PRESENTED TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT said that Motorola is the one who filed.





    So either you were lying when you claimed that the link you provided was relevant or you're lying now. Which is it?


    The article you began your comments from the top of the thread never mentions the ITC. Judge Posner never mentions the ITC. The ITC is not mentioned in the appeal. No one in the thread mentions the ITC until you try to grasp for it midway thru and well after we started our debate. Yet you say it's always been the ITC case we've been discussing? then go on to say I claimed Apple lost?? Not very truthful JR.


     


    You might want it to be about the ITC case, but then how would you rationalize this comment from you:


    "And when you add in all the judge's specific comments about Google/Motorola regarding FRAND abuse, it was a sound smackdown for Google." Which judge were you referring to? Clearly not one at the ITC.


     


    So in effect you're depending on the last paragraph of an AI article, where it guesses what prompted Apple's filing and calls it a countersuit, to bail you out for one of your six claims? That's not at all what the article was about! It's absolutely relevant since it was meant as only one piece of an effort to help you help you understand the flaw in your arguments, but certainly not as the sole factual evidence that Apple's first filing was a counterclaim. Nor does it help you with your other 5 flawed claims you continue to wish didn't happen.


     


    http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/22/apples_patent_case_against_motorola_dismissed_with_prejudice


    One of my other links given at the same time plainly states who initiated the case heard by Judge Posner: It was Apple. You chose to ignore that one with facts (WSJ) for one that guesses at Apple's motivation and assumes it should be called a countersuit. (AI)


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577453190197480550.html


     


    So as to remove confusion here's a timeline with filing dates noted:


    http://www.patentprogress.org/cases/apple-v-motorola-n-d-ill/


     


    In summary:


    " Apple initiated this lawsuit alleging that Motorola has infringed upon three of Apple’s Patents.  Motorola filed a Counterclaim alleging that Apple infringes upon six Motorola patents, and Apple expanded its allegation to include fifteen total patents.  The case was transferred from the Western District of Wisconsin to the Northern District of Illinois, where Judge Richard Posner took over the case while sitting in designation.  After months of motions practice by both parties, Judge Posner ordered both parties to submit reports on damages.  After receiving these reports, and hearing oral testimony, Judge Posner dismissed the case, concluding that neither party had presented sufficient evidence of damages to create a triable case or controversy, and that neither party had demonstrated why pecuniary damages are an inadequate remedy.  Both parties have appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the case now resides".


     


    There's much more detail at the link if you choose to look at it.


     


    So anyway, about those other five claims you made? Still rather not talk about them and try to keep the focus on just this one?


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156501/google-calls-apple-unwilling-licensee-in-bid-for-injunction-over-frand-patent-violations/40#post_2294938

  • Reply 59 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    The article you began your comments from the top of the thread never mentions the ITC. Judge Posner never mentions the ITC. The ITC is not mentioned in the appeal. No one in the thread mentions the ITC until you try to grasp for it midway thru and well after we started our debate. Yet you say it's always been the ITC case we've been discussing? then go on to say I claimed Apple lost?? Not very truthful JR.

    OK, so it wasn't the ITC case.

    That doesn't change anything. You cited an article in discussing the topic of this thread and claimed that it was relevant. That article showed that Motorola filed first.

    So were you lying when you cited the article or are you lying now?
  • Reply 60 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,239member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    OK, so it wasn't the ITC case.



    That doesn't change anything. You cited an article in discussing the topic of this thread and claimed that it was relevant. That article showed that Motorola filed first.



    So were you lying when you cited the article or are you lying now?


    The link was relevant when I posted it and still relevant. That doesn't mean it's flawless. In the final paragraph it erroneously refers to Apple's filing in District Court as a counterclaim to an administrative action at the ITC. It's simply one link of several I offered you to assist you with your misunderstanding.  Unfortunately it took quite a while for some of the facts to register with you.


     


    I've no idea how you rationalize the question of lying by association with an imperfect AI article. Perhaps it's a desperate attempt to show someone else is wrong too, not just you?

Sign In or Register to comment.