I guess Foxcon won't be building a factory in Wisconsin after all.
No I think this is an example of Apple getting a little STUPID in their old age. To sight a similar patent in you patent filing just seems to be inviting a lawsuit. Apple basically said hey this is where the idea came from.
Right, because Apple is one monolithic mind. Every word in every patent filing is reviewed by every executive and represents the unanimous opinion of the Apple hive mind. Alternatively, this could have been a mistake by the patent attorneys working for Apple at that particular time. Nah, it must be that Apple hive mind thing. It's getting old and senile. Dare I say, Apple is doomed, as a logical consequence?
It suggests neither. Related patents are always called out as prior art in patent filings. The fact Apple was aware of WARF's work strengthens Apple's case of non-infringement, because it implies Apple had reviewed the prior art and would have made efforts in development of its own methods to avoid infringement. Could it have inadvertently infringed regardless? Sure. But it wouldn't have infringed knowingly if aware of the prior art. Also, a court's/jury's decisions on complex IP infringement can be a very subjective thing, depending upon the particular expertise, or lack thereof, on the part of those making the deliberation. A judge might know patent law, but might not know all that's needed to make a valid determination regarding the specific art under review. Apple is appealing, in the end they might have to pay, these things happen in the course of developing technology products. Life will go on.
If I look at what has been written about this case, I totally disagree with you. For me Apple was just arrogant: "We know we are infringing, but hey we are Apple, who do you you are that you can sue us. We can pay better lawyers, so stop whining."
That is what the plaintiff is hoping you, the court system, and any potential jurors in Wisconsin will extrapolate. This case is another example that patent law reform is needed. That is just my opinion. I’ll leave it up to the law professionals that have posted here to post a better arguement.
Should these patent lawsuits judge by relative experts? Sometimes it is super technical not something a layman or a judge can fully understand. I know they have expert witnesses but is it good enough to teach a normal person to understand something that complex?
Perhaps. But parties have a right to have juries decide matters of fact in such cases (i.e. civil cases arising under federal law involving more than $20). The Seventh Amendment secures that right. Whether something infringes a given patent claim is a question of fact. There are related questions of law (e.g. the definition of certain words used in a patent claim) which a judge can decide. But either party has the right to have a jury, rather than an appointed expert, decide the factual issues.
lkrupp said: We all look at things with our biased ideologies don't we. ... Yeah, that fits the narrative of all corporations being evil entities that exist only to exploit and repress.
True, and this sits in opposition to the contrasting 'free market' view that is often equally uninformed about economics or human nature. At least the 'greedy corporation' view has a great deal of empirical evidence behind it. The devil is in the details on both, and it seems in many of these cases, a blend of the two gets closer to reality.
The sad reality is a heck of a lot of people nowadays seem to actually believe corporations legally *have* to maximize profits at all costs and behaviors (i.e.: exist only to exploit and repress). And, it does seem like that's what a lot of them are trying to do. Whether they teach such things in the Business 101 courses, I have no idea. But, I can hardly blame people for holding that opinion (even if it isn't universal).
cloudmobile said: Don't claim that Google should have to pay for Android. They don't because the Supreme Court said otherwise almost 25 years ago. ...Apple's only counterargument: we changed the original design, it became our design when we changed it so we don't have to pay for it anymore. Never mind that this argument has been shot down millions of times already.
--- quote ends here ---
Though maybe the Supreme Court was wrong. I think sometimes the whole precedence thing in our legal system goes a bit too far.
re: changed design - Yes, this is where it gets tricky. Nearly any design is based off some previous one in some way. That's why IP expires and why these disputes lead to court battles.
carnegie said: Perhaps. But parties have a right to have juries decide matters of fact in such cases (i.e. civil cases arising under federal law involving more than $20). The Seventh Amendment secures that right. Whether something infringes a given patent claim is a question of fact. There are related questions of law (e.g. the definition of certain words used in a patent claim) which a judge can decide. But either party has the right to have a jury, rather than an appointed expert, decide the factual issues.
Well, and for every expert, there's likely an expert who will make an opposite argument. That's why we do things this way. Juries are *supposed* to be impartial, and then listen to the expert testimony from both sides, and decide. A court system where an 'expert' was brought in to make the decision would be horrific.
Comments
The sad reality is a heck of a lot of people nowadays seem to actually believe corporations legally *have* to maximize profits at all costs and behaviors (i.e.: exist only to exploit and repress). And, it does seem like that's what a lot of them are trying to do. Whether they teach such things in the Business 101 courses, I have no idea. But, I can hardly blame people for holding that opinion (even if it isn't universal).
cloudmobile said:
Don't claim that Google should have to pay for Android. They don't because the Supreme Court said otherwise almost 25 years ago.
...Apple's only counterargument: we changed the original design, it became our design when we changed it so we don't have to pay for it anymore. Never mind that this argument has been shot down millions of times already.
--- quote ends here ---
Though maybe the Supreme Court was wrong. I think sometimes the whole precedence thing in our legal system goes a bit too far.
re: changed design - Yes, this is where it gets tricky. Nearly any design is based off some previous one in some way. That's why IP expires and why these disputes lead to court battles.
...