In case anyone didn't pay attention in an earlier case, the ITC staff is fairly consistent in finding that exclusion orders are appropriate when IP infringement is identified. In the case from a few weeks ago the Staff opinion dismissed Apple's own "public interest" arguments in supporting the order of an import ban on certain Apple products. In fact some of Apple's arguments mirrored the points made by Google that Mueller took issue with.
"Notably, [B]OUII expresses the view that public interest considerations do not bar the issuance of an exclusion order [/B]based on Apple’s alleged infringement of Samsung’s 3G-essential technology. In OUII’s view, even if Samsung has FRAND obligations with respect to the standard-essential patents at issue, Apple has not carried its burden to show that Samsung violated these obligations.
Exclusion Order-Related Issues
One issue relating to the public interest is the quantitative and qualitative effect on the market for infringing (and similar) products. The Staff notes that because only Apple products operating on AT&T’s network would be affected by any exclusion order, this would only affect 20% of U.S. smartphones and 3% of U.S. tablets. According to OUII, [B]there’s no evidence that demand for these products couldn’t be met by other competitors such as Samsung, Motorola, etc.[/B] — and in OUII’s view, products sold by these companies would be “acceptable substitutes” for Apple’s infringing iPhones and iPads. Thus, this alone would not preclude an exclusion order.
Lastly, as far as whether the scope of the exclusion order might act to bar later generations of Apple products that were not specifically named in Samsung’s complaint, the Staff is of the opinion that this would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (who enforces ITC exclusion orders)."
Too, Google has been consistent in arguing that exclusionary orders often are at odds with the public interest, contrary to what DED and Mueller would write. Back in 2011 for example, before Google ever bought Motorola, they made the same general arguments in support of HTC.
I[B]f "Corrections" would like to dispute that since he claims it was the point of his article, I'm more than willing to consider the facts he has to present.[/B]. If those facts prove me wrong I'll admit it.
Mueller's word-tricks, and by extention Daniels, is that to make their argument that Google is being hypocritical requires statements from Motorola management and legal staff to instead be claimed as coming from Google. They are not of course as both of them know. . . or should. A subsidiary does not speak for the parent company, as any good business student is aware. By definition Motorola is an independent company with it's own management, board-of-directors, products and business goals. Mueller finds it advantageous to conflate the two to make his arguments sound stronger while occasionally and begrudgingly noting Google and Motorola are not one and the same. Casual readers end up with a confused understanding, just as he intends IMHO.
Google arguments could well be wrong, and in fact I disagree with their view on the public interest side of this, not that it matters. To claim they're being hypocritical with the proof being arguments put forth by their subsidiaries counsel in a separate case begun well before they ever became a Google subsidiary in the first place isn't proof of that IMO.
Here's where I invite Jragosta to comment and help clarify facts since he's already shown an interest in the topic. Last I knew you were running a subsidiary of a larger parent company yourself. As the CEO of a subsidiary are you simply a parrot for the parent company, not permitted to make the tough decisions in the best interest of the company you were tasked with? A hand-puppet in effect with all decision-making vetted at an office somewhere at the parent company? Or are you instead expected to meet certain goals set by your Board of Directors, achieve results in keeping with revenue expectations, and ultimately accept responsibility for the success or failure of the company you manage by the decisions[B] you[/B] make acting within the confines of your company's BOD company guidelines? Perhaps even Anantsundaram might have some input as he seems pretty business savvy.
Now with that said I have no doubt at all if Google wanted the cases to be put to rest they could make it happen. For whatever reasons that made business sense to Google they've obviously decided not to interfere and let Motorola conclude what they started. I'd prefer to see those inherited cases gone, and not only for business reasons.
Here's where I invite Jragosta to comment since he's already shown an interest in the topic. Last I knew you were running a subsidiary of a larger company yourself. As the CEO of a subsidiary are you simply a parrot for the parent company, not permitted to make the tough decisions in the best interest of the company you were tasked with? A hand-puppet in effect with all decision-making taking place at an office somewhere at the parent company? Or are you instead expected to meet certain goals set by the parent, show results in keeping with revenue expectations, and ultimately be responsible for the success or failure of the company you manage? In essence my question is whether a subsidiary is an independent company. Perhaps even Anantsundaram might have some input.
Completely, totally wrong. I see you haven't lost your eagerness to comment on things that you have no concept of.
If you think that Google has no influence over Motorola's legal activities, then you're even more of a fool than I thought.
From your post, it appears that Google has switched from a 'per post' payment scheme to a 'per word' payment scheme for you. You must be doing well under this new scheme.
Completely, totally wrong. I see you haven't lost your eagerness to comment on things that you have no concept of.
If you think that Google has no influence over Motorola's legal activities, then you're even more of a fool than I thought.
From your post, it appears that Google has switched from a 'per post' payment scheme to a 'per word' payment scheme for you. You must be doing well under this new scheme.
Ah, move the goalposts to claiming I said the parent can't influence the subsidiary. Of course they have influence. Instead why not answer the questions I actually asked instead of making one of your own up. They're really not hard questions and would go further in explaining just what a subsidiary is.
Does your subsidiary operate independently from the parent company?
Are your decision-making hands tied by the parent company and if so is that typical? After all it's not the first company you've managed.
Before any decisions affecting the companies business are made are you required to have them vetted by the parent company?
Who sets the goals for you as the company CEO?
Does your subsidiary have it's own Board of Directors, and what is their purpose?
Is your company's BOD obligated to act in the best interests of the subsidiary company?
At the end of the day, is a subsidiary an independent company with their own decision-making structure in place or a sock-puppet for the parent?
Hopefully expecting an honest answer from an experienced and highly knowledgeable businessman isn't asking too much of you.
If "Corrections" would like to dispute that since he claims it was the point of his article, I'm more than willing to consider the facts he has to present..
You arrogant, little man.
Who are we to have to bow and scrape for your approval?
If "Corrections" would like to dispute that since he claims it was the point of his article, I'm more than willing to consider the facts he has to present..
Ah, move the goalposts to claiming I said the parent can't influence the subsidiary. Of course they have influence. Instead why not answer the questions I actually asked instead of making one of your own up. They're really not hard questions and would go further in explaining just what a subsidiary is.
Does your subsidiary operate independently from the parent company?
Are your decision-making hands tied by the parent company and if so is that typical? After all it's not the first company you've managed.
Before any decisions affecting the companies business are made are you required to have them vetted by the parent company?
Who sets the goals for you as the company CEO?
Does your subsidiary have it's own Board of Directors, and what is their purpose?
Is your company's BOD obligated to act in the best interests of the subsidiary company?
At the end of the day, is a subsidiary an independent company with their own decision-making structure in place or a sock-puppet for the parent?
Hopefully expecting an honest answer from an experienced and highly knowledgeable businessman isn't asking too much of you.
Once again, if you had any clue how business works, you wouldn't ask such a silly question.
The answer is that it depends on circumstances, management style, and many other things. In general, though, the larger the decision, the more likely it is to be controlled by the parent company. You can be 100% sure that Google is making the billion dollar decisions.
Once again, if you had any clue how business works, you wouldn't ask such a silly question.
The answer is that it depends on circumstances, management style, and many other things. In general, though, the larger the decision, the more likely it is to be controlled by the parent company. You can be 100% sure that Google is making the billion dollar decisions.
Is the filing of an answer to Apple's court response in Motorola's case against them one of those "billion-dollar decisions" JR? Hardly IMO. Now dropping it altogether might be one of those billion-dollar decisions. FWIW Motorola still employs the same legal counsel they did before Google ever signaled an intent to buy them and the same one they've had since the cases were filed. Submitting a response to the courts questions sounds like the boilerplate type of thing he would be expected to oversee doesn't it? How's it work at your company?
For others unsure about subsidiaries they are by their very definition separate companies from the parent. Their Board-of-Directors is also legally expected to make decisions in the best interests of that company and not the parent. Obviously it would be in Motorola's best interests to take the cases to conclusion. From the outside looking in there's zero benefit to Moto in dropping them at this stage unless you believe doing so would lead Apple and Microsoft to reciprocate and find a way to settle their differences in a boardroom rather than courtroom.
Unless you can identify some valid business reason for Google to interfere with Motorola's decisions in their on-going court cases so far then what has you convinced that Google has done so? Why would they? Would Moto have dropped the lawsuits if Google hadn't purchased them and thus you're claiming it's Google pushing this forward and not Moto? Perhaps you're not a CEO and I was simply mistaken.
Is the filing of an answer to Apple's court response in Motorola's case against them one of those "billion-dollar decisions" JR? Hardly IMO.
Then your opinion isn't worth crap.
The entire Moto/Google/Apple/everyone else legal situation is a multibillion dollar issue. Google is not letting Motorola run around doing whatever they want.
Is the filing of an answer to Apple's court response in Motorola's case against them one of those "billion-dollar decisions" JR? Hardly IMO. Now dropping it altogether might be one of those billion-dollar decisions. FWIW Motorola still employs the same legal counsel they did before Google ever signaled an intent to buy them and the same one they've had since the cases were filed. Submitting a response to the courts questions sounds like the boilerplate type of thing he would be expected to oversee doesn't it? How's it work at your company?
For others unsure about subsidiaries they are by their very definition separate companies from the parent. Their Board-of-Directors is also legally expected to make decisions in the best interests of that company and not the parent. Obviously it would be in Motorola's best interests to take the cases to conclusion. From the outside looking in there's zero benefit to Moto in dropping them at this stage unless you believe doing so would lead Apple and Microsoft to reciprocate and find a way to settle their differences in a boardroom rather than courtroom.
Unless you can identify some valid business reason for Google to interfere with Motorola's decisions in their on-going court cases so far then what has you convinced that Google has done so? Why would they? Would Moto have dropped the lawsuits if Google hadn't purchased them and thus you're claiming it's Google pushing this forward and not Moto? Perhaps you're not a CEO and I was simply mistaken.
I don't think Moto has a separate BoD as they have no stock or investors. They do have a separate executive team.
The entire Moto/Google/Apple/everyone else legal situation is a multibillion dollar issue. Google is not letting Motorola run around doing whatever they want.
I don't think Moto has a separate BoD as they have no stock or investors. They do have a separate executive team.
Yes they have a Board of Directors, legally expected to move the company in the direction of it's best interests. At least two of the three came over from Google after the sale closed with Kent Walker possibly being the director having a hand in no new cases being filed. Simply a guess of course. For the board to direct the old cases be dropped altogether (or new cases filed for that matter) would typically require consideration of how it would benefit the company to do so. Even JR won't disagree with that. I can't think of any good business reason for abandoning the lawsuits myself. Can you? On the other hand, I personally wish they'd take the high road and do it anyway.
Yes they have a Board of Directors, legally expected to move the company in the direction of it's best interests. At least two of the three came over from Google after the sale closed with Kent Walker possibly being the director having a hand in no new cases being filed. Simply a guess of course. For the board to direct the old cases be dropped altogether (or new cases filed for that matter) would typically require consideration of how it would benefit the company to do so. Even JR won't disagree with that. I can't think of any good business reason for abandoning the lawsuits myself. Can you? On the other hand, I personally wish they'd take the high road and do it anyway.
Were you drinking when you posted these recent few posts?
Were you drinking when you posted these recent few posts?
Why? Was something in them factually incorrect or reached a logically unreasonable conclusion? I'm guessing instead that this is where you write another attempted insult, lacking anything of more substance to add to the discussion so far. Surprise us and put together a counter-argument instead.
Yes they have a Board of Directors, legally expected to move the company in the direction of it's best interests. At least two of the three came over from Google after the sale closed with Kent Walker possibly being the director having a hand in no new cases being filed. Simply a guess of course. For the board to direct the old cases be dropped altogether (or new cases filed for that matter) would typically require consideration of how it would benefit the company to do so. Even JR won't disagree with that. I can't think of any good business reason for abandoning the lawsuits myself. Can you? On the other hand, I personally wish they'd take the high road and do it anyway.
Why would Moto have a separate BoD? They aren't an independent company. They don't answer to shareholders. Who is going to hold them accountable?
They're certainly an independent company. That's what a subsidiary is. Do a little research and I think you'll find my comments concerning the BoD and where its allegiance lies are accurate.
I'm guessing instead that this is where you write another attempted insult, lacking anything of more substance to add to the discussion so far. Surprise us and put together a counter-argument instead.
Poor old Gatorguy.
You still seem to think we're in class debating or in a court of law.
If insults insult you then stop insulting our intelligence with your drivel.
And don't expect any 'counter-arguments' from me. I don't play 'Feed the Troll'.
You still seem to think we're in class debating or in a court of law.
If insults insult you then stop insulting our intelligence with your drivel.
And don't expect any 'counter-arguments' from me. I don't play 'Feed the Troll'.
But that attention you came here to get?
That you can have, but I'll make you earn it.
Thanks for keeping the thread alive. It had been going on two days since the last post. A few more visitors may see it now if you'll continue to refresh it every day or so.
Just a few more and it will break 1400 views. Not bad for an article that depends on a premise rooted in "flawgic"
Comments
http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/04/itc-staff-exclusion-order-is-an-appropriate-remedy-for-apple-infringement-of-samsung-sep/
"Notably, [B]OUII expresses the view that public interest considerations do not bar the issuance of an exclusion order [/B]based on Apple’s alleged infringement of Samsung’s 3G-essential technology. In OUII’s view, even if Samsung has FRAND obligations with respect to the standard-essential patents at issue, Apple has not carried its burden to show that Samsung violated these obligations.
Exclusion Order-Related Issues
One issue relating to the public interest is the quantitative and qualitative effect on the market for infringing (and similar) products. The Staff notes that because only Apple products operating on AT&T’s network would be affected by any exclusion order, this would only affect 20% of U.S. smartphones and 3% of U.S. tablets. According to OUII, [B]there’s no evidence that demand for these products couldn’t be met by other competitors such as Samsung, Motorola, etc.[/B] — and in OUII’s view, products sold by these companies would be “acceptable substitutes” for Apple’s infringing iPhones and iPads. Thus, this alone would not preclude an exclusion order.
Lastly, as far as whether the scope of the exclusion order might act to bar later generations of Apple products that were not specifically named in Samsung’s complaint, the Staff is of the opinion that this would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (who enforces ITC exclusion orders)."
Too, Google has been consistent in arguing that exclusionary orders often are at odds with the public interest, contrary to what DED and Mueller would write. Back in 2011 for example, before Google ever bought Motorola, they made the same general arguments in support of HTC.
I[B]f "Corrections" would like to dispute that since he claims it was the point of his article, I'm more than willing to consider the facts he has to present.[/B]. If those facts prove me wrong I'll admit it.
Mueller's word-tricks, and by extention Daniels, is that to make their argument that Google is being hypocritical requires statements from Motorola management and legal staff to instead be claimed as coming from Google. They are not of course as both of them know. . . or should. A subsidiary does not speak for the parent company, as any good business student is aware. By definition Motorola is an independent company with it's own management, board-of-directors, products and business goals. Mueller finds it advantageous to conflate the two to make his arguments sound stronger while occasionally and begrudgingly noting Google and Motorola are not one and the same. Casual readers end up with a confused understanding, just as he intends IMHO.
Google arguments could well be wrong, and in fact I disagree with their view on the public interest side of this, not that it matters. To claim they're being hypocritical with the proof being arguments put forth by their subsidiaries counsel in a separate case begun well before they ever became a Google subsidiary in the first place isn't proof of that IMO.
Here's where I invite Jragosta to comment and help clarify facts since he's already shown an interest in the topic. Last I knew you were running a subsidiary of a larger parent company yourself. As the CEO of a subsidiary are you simply a parrot for the parent company, not permitted to make the tough decisions in the best interest of the company you were tasked with? A hand-puppet in effect with all decision-making vetted at an office somewhere at the parent company? Or are you instead expected to meet certain goals set by your Board of Directors, achieve results in keeping with revenue expectations, and ultimately accept responsibility for the success or failure of the company you manage by the decisions[B] you[/B] make acting within the confines of your company's BOD company guidelines? Perhaps even Anantsundaram might have some input as he seems pretty business savvy.
Now with that said I have no doubt at all if Google wanted the cases to be put to rest they could make it happen. For whatever reasons that made business sense to Google they've obviously decided not to interfere and let Motorola conclude what they started. I'd prefer to see those inherited cases gone, and not only for business reasons.
Completely, totally wrong. I see you haven't lost your eagerness to comment on things that you have no concept of.
If you think that Google has no influence over Motorola's legal activities, then you're even more of a fool than I thought.
From your post, it appears that Google has switched from a 'per post' payment scheme to a 'per word' payment scheme for you. You must be doing well under this new scheme.
Ah, move the goalposts to claiming I said the parent can't influence the subsidiary. Of course they have influence. Instead why not answer the questions I actually asked instead of making one of your own up. They're really not hard questions and would go further in explaining just what a subsidiary is.
Does your subsidiary operate independently from the parent company?
Are your decision-making hands tied by the parent company and if so is that typical? After all it's not the first company you've managed.
Before any decisions affecting the companies business are made are you required to have them vetted by the parent company?
Who sets the goals for you as the company CEO?
Does your subsidiary have it's own Board of Directors, and what is their purpose?
Is your company's BOD obligated to act in the best interests of the subsidiary company?
At the end of the day, is a subsidiary an independent company with their own decision-making structure in place or a sock-puppet for the parent?
Hopefully expecting an honest answer from an experienced and highly knowledgeable businessman isn't asking too much of you.
You arrogant, little man.
Who are we to have to bow and scrape for your approval?
Once again, if you had any clue how business works, you wouldn't ask such a silly question.
The answer is that it depends on circumstances, management style, and many other things. In general, though, the larger the decision, the more likely it is to be controlled by the parent company. You can be 100% sure that Google is making the billion dollar decisions.
Is the filing of an answer to Apple's court response in Motorola's case against them one of those "billion-dollar decisions" JR? Hardly IMO. Now dropping it altogether might be one of those billion-dollar decisions. FWIW Motorola still employs the same legal counsel they did before Google ever signaled an intent to buy them and the same one they've had since the cases were filed. Submitting a response to the courts questions sounds like the boilerplate type of thing he would be expected to oversee doesn't it? How's it work at your company?
For others unsure about subsidiaries they are by their very definition separate companies from the parent. Their Board-of-Directors is also legally expected to make decisions in the best interests of that company and not the parent. Obviously it would be in Motorola's best interests to take the cases to conclusion. From the outside looking in there's zero benefit to Moto in dropping them at this stage unless you believe doing so would lead Apple and Microsoft to reciprocate and find a way to settle their differences in a boardroom rather than courtroom.
Unless you can identify some valid business reason for Google to interfere with Motorola's decisions in their on-going court cases so far then what has you convinced that Google has done so? Why would they? Would Moto have dropped the lawsuits if Google hadn't purchased them and thus you're claiming it's Google pushing this forward and not Moto? Perhaps you're not a CEO and I was simply mistaken.
Then your opinion isn't worth crap.
The entire Moto/Google/Apple/everyone else legal situation is a multibillion dollar issue. Google is not letting Motorola run around doing whatever they want.
I don't think Moto has a separate BoD as they have no stock or investors. They do have a separate executive team.
Excellent use of a strawman argument JR.
Yes they have a Board of Directors, legally expected to move the company in the direction of it's best interests. At least two of the three came over from Google after the sale closed with Kent Walker possibly being the director having a hand in no new cases being filed. Simply a guess of course. For the board to direct the old cases be dropped altogether (or new cases filed for that matter) would typically require consideration of how it would benefit the company to do so. Even JR won't disagree with that. I can't think of any good business reason for abandoning the lawsuits myself. Can you? On the other hand, I personally wish they'd take the high road and do it anyway.
Were you drinking when you posted these recent few posts?
Why? Was something in them factually incorrect or reached a logically unreasonable conclusion? I'm guessing instead that this is where you write another attempted insult, lacking anything of more substance to add to the discussion so far. Surprise us and put together a counter-argument instead.
Why would Moto have a separate BoD? They aren't an independent company. They don't answer to shareholders. Who is going to hold them accountable?
Poor old Gatorguy.
You still seem to think we're in class debating or in a court of law.
If insults insult you then stop insulting our intelligence with your drivel.
And don't expect any 'counter-arguments' from me. I don't play 'Feed the Troll'.
But that attention you came here to get?
That you can have, but I'll make you earn it.
Thanks for keeping the thread alive. It had been going on two days since the last post. A few more visitors may see it now if you'll continue to refresh it every day or so.
Just a few more and it will break 1400 views. Not bad for an article that depends on a premise rooted in "flawgic"