German court tosses patent troll's $2.2B patent suit against Apple

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    healthnut wrote: »
    It's good the major tech companies are banding together to stop patent trolls at least. I mean legitimate ones of course, they're just wasting the court's time. I don't think IPCom is necessarily a troll either, it's important to protect what you patent. I just don't see these lawsuits stopping anytime soon though.

    IPCom didn't patent anything in the first place AFAIK nor ever produce any products. In this case they suing with patents they got from Bosch. But I agree with you that it's good to see some of the leading techs finding they have a shared concern.
  • Reply 22 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    IPComm was also suing HTC alongside Apple in Germany for the same patents if I read it correctly. Sad to see you fall so easily for Mr. Mueller's wordplay, as tho Google in-house attorneys are involved. If you'd read a bit more carefully you should have noted that he was referring to an independent law-firm, Quinn-Emanuel, who has also represented dozens of other tech firms, Google being just one of them.

    I chose not to reference HTC in my Apple-focused response because I do not care about HTC. As far as reading a bit more carefully, I noted... 

     

    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Apple): Dr. Frank-Erich Hufnagel and Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont fended off, at least for the time being, all seven Samsung lawsuits against Apple in Germany, five of them over SEPs. A few months ago they also won a stay of a rate-setting lawsuit brought by Google (Motorola). Tomorrow they are going to face some of Samsung and Google's lawyers, who also do a fair amount of work for IPCom, once again. Given their perfect track record, it's no surprise that Apple keeps relying on them here.

     

    My entire subject in this matter has been the above italicized and underlined sentence. With so many lawyers mentioned in the report, can you be absolutely, one hundred percent certain Mr. Mueller was not writing about Samsung and Google lawyers. If you can, do you have any shred of evidence that Mr. Mueller was wrong about Google and Samsung lawyers? If so, present it to me and everyone else here. Until that time I am going with Mr. Mueller writing the truth.

  • Reply 23 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    I chose not to reference HTC in my Apple-focused response because I do not care about HTC. As far as reading a bit more carefully, I noted... 

    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Apple): Dr. Frank-Erich Hufnagel and Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont fended off, at least for the time being, all seven Samsung lawsuits against Apple in Germany, five of them over SEPs. A few months ago they also won a stay of a rate-setting lawsuit brought by Google (Motorola). Tomorrow they are going to face some of Samsung and Google's lawyers, who also do a fair amount of work for IPCom, once again. Given their perfect track record, it's no surprise that Apple keeps relying on them here.

    My entire subject in this matter has been the above italicized and underlined sentence. With so many lawyers mentioned in the report, can you be absolutely, one hundred percent certain Mr. Mueller was not writing about Samsung and Google lawyers. If you can, do you have any shred of evidence that Mr. Mueller was wrong about Google and Samsung lawyers? If so, present it to me and everyone else here. Until that time I am going with Mr. Mueller writing the truth.

    Who said he's lying? He's simply practicing his "guilt by association" skills. Go a bit farther down that same page to find what attorneys Mr/ Mueller is referring to since he doesn't tell you in the only blurb you seem to have any interest in reading. Paying attention to which ones are representing IPCom (It's in parentheses next to each of the attorney names) and also mention Google will make it easy-peasy if you don't have the time to read more than needed. Hint: It starts with Quinn-Emanuel. ;)
  • Reply 24 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Who said he's lying? He's simply practicing his "guilt by association" skills. Go a bit farther down that same page to find what attorneys Mr/ Mueller is referring to since he doesn't tell you in the only blurb you seem to have any interest in reading. Paying attention to which ones are representing IPCom (It's in parentheses next to each of the attorney names) and also mention Google will make it easy-peasy if you don't have the time to read more than needed. Hint: It starts with Quinn-Emanuel. image

    I have read the entire report. You are making the assumption Quinn-Emmanuel are the lawyers that Mr. Mueller references as Google and Samsung lawyers. I am making the assumption that Mr. Mueller is referencing Google and Samsung lawyers. So we agree to disagree unless you can prove Mr. Mueller was not 100% honest in his report. You can keep on trying to convince me otherwise, but I doubt you will be able to do so without proof. Thanks for playing. :p

  • Reply 25 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    I have read the entire report. You are making the assumption Quinn-Emmanuel are the lawyers that Mr. Mueller references as Google and Samsung lawyers. I am making the assumption that Mr. Mueller is referencing Google and Samsung lawyers. So we agree to disagree unless you can prove Mr. Mueller was not 100% honest in his report. You can keep on trying to convince me otherwise, but I doubt you will be able to do so without proof. Thanks for playing. :p

    Well show me which attorneys he was referring to then*. He listed them all by name.

    *Yeah I know. . . the Samsung and Google ones. LOL
  • Reply 26 of 34
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Well show me which attorneys he was referring to then*. He listed them all by name.



    *Yeah I know. . . the Samsung and Google ones. LOL

    Your timing is great! I was sending Mr. Mueller an email asking him to confirm his statement about Google and Samsung lawyers when I was notified you had added another post for me. I will update this post IF he chooses to respond to me. This will be interesting! :) 

  • Reply 27 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    Your timing is great! I was sending Mr. Mueller an email asking him to confirm his statement about Google and Samsung lawyers when I was notified you had added another post for me. I will update this post IF he chooses to respond to me. This will be interesting! :)  

    Lets see if his "Google attorneys" is the same as mine, Quinn-Emanuel :D Would you consider his article a bit misleading if it is?
  • Reply 28 of 34
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post



    To stop these NPE's in their tracks, those suits that get tossed the plaintifs/ trolls should be forced to pay stiff penalties upon having their suits tossed.

     

    I think it could be as simple as forcing the troll to pay the defense costs / legal expenses if their suit is shown to be without merit. They brought the suit, they should bear the brunt of the costs. Simple.

     

    I suggest this in part because on the other hand, if they win a case, the legal cost of their bringing suit is usually reimbursed by the defendant, and factored into the settlement. Why is the opposite not true? Why should the defendant bear any cost if they are found to be without fault?

  • Reply 29 of 34
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

     



    Yes, it also helps to have enough money to buy a President.


     

    Love the paranoia. Talk to the tinfoil around your own mind.

  • Reply 30 of 34
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,965member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post



    To stop these NPE's in their tracks, those suits that get tossed the plaintifs/ trolls should be forced to pay stiff penalties upon having their suits tossed.



    I disagree.  It should be a right of every patent holder to sue without being punished. 

  • Reply 31 of 34
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

     



    Yes, it also helps to have enough money to buy a President.


    You are correct. Samsung does know how to do this.

    -> http://www.upi.com/topic/Lee_Kun-hee/

    "On January 14, 2008, Lee's home and office were raided by the Korean police for an ongoing probe into accusations that Samsung is responsible for a slush fund used to bribe influential prosecutors, judges, and political figures in South Korea."

  • Reply 32 of 34
    Companies like these are the Flappy Bird real-world rip-offs. 2 billion dollars. What A-Holes.:no:
  • Reply 33 of 34
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,562member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    I'm glad that Apple has lots of money, hires the best lawyers, and that is why they usually win.


    First make sure you quote my entire comment, and stop acting like a politician.

     

    But yes, if you even been involved in Patent litigation and realize you have to argue your case in front of people who most time have no idea what your patent is about or have the first clue about technology you better have good lawyers. The Apple case against Samsung could have gone either way, why did you think Samsung wanted one of the jury members tosses from the case after the fact, he actually understood the who patent thing and explained it to everyone else on the jury.

     

    Most Patent Troll hope you will just pay to make them go away since going to trial will be costly and you can not predict the outcome even if you can proved you are right and did nothing wrong. You know that 7% of the people in the US still thinks the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, imagine getting one of those people on your patent trial. These are the kind of people you are dealing with when you walk into a court room.

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/flat-earth-society-psychology_n_2038198.html

  • Reply 34 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    maestro64 wrote: »
    why did you think Samsung wanted one of the jury members tosses from the case after the fact, he actually understood the who patent thing and explained it to everyone else on the jury.

    Incorrectly I might add. He apparently didn't know as much as he thought he did.
Sign In or Register to comment.