Appeals court rules Apple can sue Motorola, creates claim chaos for Data Detectors

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    If you are involved in an ongoing case as a witness, aren't you violating the law by discussing any element of that case here?


    No, he is not.

     

    First, he is not revealing any specifics of the case, only the qualifications of the attorneys involved.

     

    Second, only the jury is prohibited form discussing the case with outsiders. A witness is free to say anything they want as they have no inside knowledge - just their own observations or opinions.

     

    Third, revealing information about the case would be illegal only if the Judge imposed a gag-order on all parties. 

  • Reply 22 of 43
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 323member

    Waiting for my boy "F-to-the-M" (Florian Mueller) to start crying about how Google/Motorola should be the only one's allowed to sue for SEPs.

  • Reply 23 of 43
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said.

     

    Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.

  • Reply 24 of 43
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,453member

    Every time someone says that Apple suited first in the case of Motrorola it was done for this reason, Motorola, prior to Google buy attempted to force Apple to licence all the Non-SEP in exchange for Motorola licensing their SEP. Motorola attempted to Blackmail apple into allow them to use all their unique IP and this judge was helping Motorola do that. 

     

    Quote:


    Judge Posner had issued a critical rebuke of Apple's entire business model centered around innovation, recommending that Apple license its technology to Motorola instead of seeking an injunction which said would be "catastrophic" and harmful to consumers.



    Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said. Apple doesn't want to be forced to license its patented technologies to Google for use in Android.


  • Reply 25 of 43
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

     

     

    Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.


    I agree, I do not believe he actually said that, it was implied by his action and the fact he told Apple and Motorola to work a deal out with licensing. But other sources are making a similar statement as well. I do know for a fact that Motorola wanted Apple to cross license all apple iphone non-SEP in exchange for Motorola SEP.

     

    BTW, it not AI quote but

     

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/apple-google-lawsuit-idINL1E8HK25C20120620

     

    Quote:


    Apple attorney Matthew Powers said it is not seeking an order barring the sale of Motorola phones. Rather, Apple would be satisfied with an injunction requiring Motorola to remove Apple's patented technology from Motorola phones within three months.

    That outcome would ensure the Android phones do not share some of the same features as the iPhone, a differentiation that could help Apple in the marketplace. One of the patents at issue, for instance, covers technology to stream real time video without glitches or delays.

    "It means we're not competing with them where they are using our technology against us," Powers said.

    But Posner said it may be preferable to direct Motorola to pay Apple a compulsory royalty. Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, he said.



  • Reply 26 of 43
    prokip wrote: »
    C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.

    It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.

    It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is ...

    FWIW, any BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) device can act as a client, server or both!

    It is also worth noting that in BLE, the words client and server have quite different meanings than the more common client/server definitions.

    Quick Overview
    • Here's what this article covers:
    • Master (or "central") devices scan for other devices. Usually, the master is the smartphone/tablet/PC.
    • Slave (or "peripheral") devices advertise and wait for connections. Usually, the slave is the BLE112/BLE113 module.
    • Client devices access remote resources over a BLE link using the GATT protocol. Usually, the master is also the client.
    • Server devices have a local database and access control methods, and provide resources to the remote client. Usually, the slave is also the server.
    • You can use read, write, notify, or indicate operations to move data between the client and the server.
      • Read and write operations are requested by the client and the server responds (or acknowledges).
      • Notify and indicate operations are enabled by the client but initiated by the server, providing a way to push data to the client.
      • Notifications are unacknowledged, while indications are acknowledged. Notifications are therefore faster, but less reliable
    • Example gatt.xml content with GATT server structure for a "typical" custom BLE peripheral device.

    https://bluegiga.zendesk.com/entries/25053373--REFERENCE-BLE-master-slave-GATT-client-server-and-data-RX-TX-basics
  • Reply 27 of 43
    droidftw wrote: »
    Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said.

    Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.

    ^^^ LOL
  • Reply 28 of 43
    prokip wrote: »
    C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.


    It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.

    There have been numerous calls for a special "patent court" filled with industry and patent professionals. There is some merit to the idea, however regular cases of law are supposed to be judged by juries composed of "normal" people. It is a problem, either way.

    Bankruptcy (chapter 7 and chapter 11) has its own courts, so there's ample precedence.
  • Reply 29 of 43
    Judge Posner was too clever -- and arrogant -- by half. Nice to see him put in his place, for a change.
  • Reply 30 of 43
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Judge Posner had issued a critical rebuke of Apple's entire business model centered around innovation"

    Yeah, Apple has been losing money hand-over-fist ever since. Proves just how relevant Posner is.

  • Reply 31 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,734member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    Judge Posner was too clever -- and arrogant -- by half. Nice to see him put in his place, for a change.

     

    It would be even nicer to see him involuntarily retired from the bench.

  • Reply 32 of 43
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,523member
    Isn't Lenovo currently in possession of the bag o' shit?
  • Reply 33 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,734member

    Tweets from Shara Tibken (just minutes ago, regarding resumption of testimony this coming Monday):


     


    Samsung now says it doesn't want testimony to be reopened. Odd about face. #appsung



     

     



    Samsung atty: "I do think this gives Apple a do-over. They made a strategic choice, so strategic that they tried to gut my case."



     

  • Reply 34 of 43
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

     

     

    Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.


    Here is the ruling read for yourself before you accuse DED.  http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/97979282?access_key=key-2fxyxlkc91re893ri4u5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

     

    He did in fact suggest exactly what Dilger said.

  • Reply 35 of 43
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 860member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

     

    Here is the ruling read for yourself before you accuse DED.  http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/97979282?access_key=key-2fxyxlkc91re893ri4u5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

     

    He did in fact suggest exactly what Dilger said.


    And his reasoning was that "Apple is not a “small company”; its market capitalization exceeds that of Google and Microsoft com-bined. To suggest that it has suffered loss of market share, brandrecognition, or customer goodwill as a result of Motorola’s alleged infringement of the patent claims still in play in this case is wild conjecture."  Well, lets fast forward two years, and that is exactly what Samsung has gotten away with.

  • Reply 36 of 43
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

     

    Here is the ruling read for yourself before you accuse DED.  http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/97979282?access_key=key-2fxyxlkc91re893ri4u5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

     

    He did in fact suggest exactly what Dilger said.


     

    Asking for a citation is an accusation?  I'm not sure I agree with that, but thanks for the link.  I did a search for "inferior" yet no results came up.  That would suggest to me that Posner didn't say what DED wrote.  If Posner did, then by all means tell us where Posner references

    'inferior, non-Apple technology'.  I would be very surprised if a judge were to say anything along the lines of non-Apple technology being inferior as was asserted.  Then again, anything's possible as a judge once determined that Samsung tablets weren't as 'cool' as iPads.

  • Reply 37 of 43
    That'll do, DED. That'll do.
  • Reply 38 of 43
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,032member
    Another big opinion from the ruling:

    Contrary to Posner's original finding [B]there is no general prohibition on injunctions concerning SEP patent infringements. [/B]
    "To the extent that the district court applied a per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, it erred. While Motorola’s FRAND commitments are certainly criteria relevant to its entitlement to an injunction, we see no reason to create, as some amici urge, a separate rule or analytical framework for addressing injunctions for FRAND-committed patents. . . an injunction may be justified where an infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect."

    In a nutshell Federal Court opinion is now that SEP's should be treated the same as all other patents and judges should simply use the 4 factors established in eBay/Merc to determine if an injunction might be appropriate. SEP's should not be singled out for different treatment.

    In a dissenting opinion Chief Judge Rader went even further saying the court also erred by not allowing Motorola to prove Apple is an "unwilling licensee" and thus subject to a possible injunction for failing to take a license to Motorola's FRAND-pledged IP.
  • Reply 39 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

    Apple is not being punished. All these cases are a result of our patent system not being able to handle software and when it should and shouldn't patentable. Apple took advantage of a rubber stamp, over streched pattent office, they are not the only ones they just do it better than most. View this as a correction or discussion about what exactly should a patent entail? How long should be viable? Does software deserve to share the same proctection that pharmaceutical drugs receive under our patent system? Is copyright the right way to proctect software instead of patents? All huge questions.

     

    Software patents are complicated. Copyright won't help it's too easy to obfuscate code. Consider works that copyright is intended to protect; authors, musicians, painters, all works that are not easily obfuscated. You can't rearrange pages in a book or bars on a music sheet and produce the desired result. With software, you can swap languages and obfuscate your logic to appear unique while implementing someone else's protected work.

     

    I think that is why a lot of software patents appear to be high level ideas. The only way to protect an algorithm is to protect the method used to derive a result. Anything more specific allows competitors to implement your algorithm in a roundabout way to skirt your protection.

     

    What is the solution? I honestly have no idea. I don't think we have any current laws that are better suited to software, nor do I believe what we are using is working either. Hopefully someone can come up with a new, better solution!

  • Reply 40 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,734member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Another big opinion from the ruling:

    Contrary to Posner's original finding there is no general prohibition on injunctions concerning SEP patent infringements.
    "To the extent that the district court applied a per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, it erred. While Motorola’s FRAND commitments are certainly criteria relevant to its entitlement to an injunction, we see no reason to create, as some amici urge, a separate rule or analytical framework for addressing injunctions for FRAND-committed patents. . . an injunction may be justified where an infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect."

    In a nutshell Federal Court opinion is now that SEP's should be treated the same as all other patents and judges should simply use the 4 factors established in eBay/Merc to determine if an injunction might be appropriate. SEP's should not be singled out for different treatment.

    In a dissenting opinion Chief Judge Rader went even further saying the court also erred by not allowing Motorola to prove Apple is an "unwilling licensee" and thus subject to a possible injunction for failing to take a license to Motorola's FRAND-pledged IP.

    And Motorola violating FRAND terms by charging excessively, or if their patents had been exhausted, they simply would've lost their patent?
Sign In or Register to comment.