Clearly what you're missing is an understanding of how court works.
Nothing gets literally laughed out of court. Both sides get an opportunity to present their side - no matter how weak the argument is. (There is an exception that one side can get summary judgment if there are absolutely no matters of fact to be decided, but that's nearly unheard of in an intellectual property case).
Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?
THANKS!
What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.
Summary judgments are pretty hard to actually come by in civil suits like this - court cases tend to drag on even if it?s obvious that somebody is going to loose. Take the Psystar case. Dragged on forever before Apple was granted a summary judgment and it was extremely obvious that Psystar was in the wrong and Apple had tons of evidence. And Psystar was not a big company.
Summary judgments are a big thing and it is less likely to occur in this case. And I doubt that FRAND violations are going to lead to a summary judgment at all. Even if MOTO was violating FRAND that doesn?t mean Apple is not guilty or that the case can be dropped.
I see now my question was flawed. I can see why Moto wants all of Apple's patents the question I should have asked is: How could they possibly think that is ever going to happen?
Nokia basically did the same thing and they won. No one knows for sure what they actually won, more than likely Apple came out ahead in that case... But it is extremely similar. I think Motorola is very desperate and is trying to force Apple into a settlement. With all these key multi-touch patents being granted, maybe they feel like Apple could sue them back to 2006 if they don't get themselves into a license agreement anyway possible.
Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?
THANKS!
What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.
As I said, it is extremely rare for a summary judgment to be issued in an IP case. You can only get a summary judgment if the parties are in completely agreement about the facts (i.e., there are no material facts in question) and they merely need the court to apply the law to the admitted facts.
if there are ANY material facts in dispute, it has to go to trial. Clearly, in this case, there are facts in dispute so a summary judgment is not reasonable.
Again, you should really learn how the law works before you continue to comment on it.
As I said, it is extremely rare for a summary judgment to be issued in an IP case. You can only get a summary judgment if the parties are in completely agreement about the facts (i.e., there are no material facts in question) and they merely need the court to apply the law to the admitted facts.
if there are ANY material facts in dispute, it has to go to trial. Clearly, in this case, there are facts in dispute so a summary judgment is not reasonable.
Again, you should really learn how the law works before you continue to comment on it.
You're a p****.
And I'm a p****, so I'm definitely qualified to comment on it.
Did you get lost and think you ended up on the legal experts forum? And what law degree do you have Mr. I Have Time To Post 4000 Times?
What I don't understand is the two mutually exclusive situations we have here.
For one, we're being told that motorola is doing all these things that are patently anti-competitive with their FRAND patents WRT Apple. The other part is that you have to assume that no lawyer could be so dumb as to green light doing something so clearly illegal. I tend to believe we're (the Apple fan public) are not being told the whole story by those experts we tend to quote often. If everything they were saying is really right, these lawsuits over the FRAND patents would be settled in Apple's favor every time before they even went to the jury. I don't get it.
Samsung found lawyers to do the same thing for them and they got slapped down. Why do you presume Motorola isn't going to be as well?
What I don't understand is the two mutually exclusive situations we have here.
For one, we're being told that motorola is doing all these things that are patently anti-competitive with their FRAND patents WRT Apple. The other part is that you have to assume that no lawyer could be so dumb as to green light doing something so clearly illegal. I tend to believe we're (the Apple fan public) are not being told the whole story by those experts we tend to quote often. If everything they were saying is really right, these lawsuits over the FRAND patents would be settled in Apple's favor every time before they even went to the jury. I don't get it.
One really would hope that logic might apply, but history has shown other companies apparently making equally unwise decisions, and the legal system still enjoys (or profits from) taking its time to come to the inevitable judgement.
Why doesn't Apple just buy up some FRAND IP and do the same to Android phones? Hell? they could buy up Qualcomm itself which I am sure has some IP in there too.
Because they would get a legal spanking for it. When a patent falls under FRAND you can't refuse to license it and you cant play games with different rules depending on your opponent. Apple knows this. Plus they respect the notion of IP, which is why they do things like ask before they create a music locker etc
LOL sorry! I didn't realize being an Apple fan and shareholder made me a troll.
I just don't see large corporations filing lawsuits they know they're going to lose, and not just lose, but these lawsuits will result in anticompetitive charges being brought against them if you believe the slanted news we're fed here.
Is being skeptical when what you're told doesn't match up with what you see with your own eyes unacceptable in the world of fanbois?
Because they would get a legal spanking for it. When a patent falls under FRAND you can't refuse to license it and you cant play games with different rules depending on your opponent. Apple knows this. Plus they respect the notion of IP, which is why they do things like ask before they create a music locker etc
So why doesn't MOT know this? Do they want to attract anti-competition lawsuits? If so, why?
I just don't see large corporations filing lawsuits they know they're going to lose, and not just lose, but these lawsuits will result in anticompetitive charges being brought against them if you believe the slanted news we're fed here.
Because at worse they just loose?
Even a partial victory can clog Apple up, even if it's reversed.
When you have absolutely no hope of being competitive, why not seek refuge in the courts?
Quote:
Is being skeptical when what you're told doesn't match up with what you see with your own eyes
You say skeptical, I say naive.
Quote:
unacceptable in the world of fanbois?
Thank you for invoking the Godwins Law of Apple threads
And I'm a p****, so I'm definitely qualified to comment on it.
Did you get lost and think you ended up on the legal experts forum? And what law degree do you have Mr. I Have Time To Post 4000 Times?
J*******.
Your lack of intelligent argument is noted.
What's the point of trolling a forum about a product that you don't like and don't use when you don't even have any intelligent arguments? You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.
This is what I'm talking about, in the above post. If they were really this ridiculous, they WOULD get laughed out of court and fined to boot. But that's not happening. So what are we missing?
What you are missing is that the main hearings haven't occurred, there have been some injunctions sought in preliminary hearings but the main bouts are still to come.
Even a partial victory can clog Apple up, even if it's reversed.
When you have absolutely no hope of being competitive, why not seek refuge in the courts?
The worst outcome of filing anticompetitive lawsuits is losing the ability to enforce those patents that you're abusing. Actually the worst outcome is even worse than that, when the antitrust regulators get involved.
That's FAR worse than just being told you wasted everyone's time.
What's the point of trolling a forum about a product that you don't like and don't use when you don't even have any intelligent arguments? You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.
What are you talking about? I do like Apple products, and I do use them. I'm also a shareholder. I just don't believe everything I read from fans of a product. The coverage here is too Apple-positive and doesn't match with reality. A smart shareholder wants to know if there's a risk that the outlook for his company is not as good as it seems to be. A dumb one shouts down those who ask questions. That's you.
Comments
Clearly what you're missing is an understanding of how court works.
Nothing gets literally laughed out of court. Both sides get an opportunity to present their side - no matter how weak the argument is. (There is an exception that one side can get summary judgment if there are absolutely no matters of fact to be decided, but that's nearly unheard of in an intellectual property case).
Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?
THANKS!
What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.
Especially for something that is FRAND. Samsung is NOT operating in good faith
While I believe your statement is factually true, it is irrelevant to the article. This is about Motorola, not Samsung.
What I'm talking about is summary judgement. .
Summary judgments are pretty hard to actually come by in civil suits like this - court cases tend to drag on even if it?s obvious that somebody is going to loose. Take the Psystar case. Dragged on forever before Apple was granted a summary judgment and it was extremely obvious that Psystar was in the wrong and Apple had tons of evidence. And Psystar was not a big company.
Summary judgments are a big thing and it is less likely to occur in this case. And I doubt that FRAND violations are going to lead to a summary judgment at all. Even if MOTO was violating FRAND that doesn?t mean Apple is not guilty or that the case can be dropped.
I see now my question was flawed. I can see why Moto wants all of Apple's patents the question I should have asked is: How could they possibly think that is ever going to happen?
Nokia basically did the same thing and they won. No one knows for sure what they actually won, more than likely Apple came out ahead in that case... But it is extremely similar. I think Motorola is very desperate and is trying to force Apple into a settlement. With all these key multi-touch patents being granted, maybe they feel like Apple could sue them back to 2006 if they don't get themselves into a license agreement anyway possible.
Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?
THANKS!
What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.
As I said, it is extremely rare for a summary judgment to be issued in an IP case. You can only get a summary judgment if the parties are in completely agreement about the facts (i.e., there are no material facts in question) and they merely need the court to apply the law to the admitted facts.
if there are ANY material facts in dispute, it has to go to trial. Clearly, in this case, there are facts in dispute so a summary judgment is not reasonable.
Again, you should really learn how the law works before you continue to comment on it.
As I said, it is extremely rare for a summary judgment to be issued in an IP case. You can only get a summary judgment if the parties are in completely agreement about the facts (i.e., there are no material facts in question) and they merely need the court to apply the law to the admitted facts.
if there are ANY material facts in dispute, it has to go to trial. Clearly, in this case, there are facts in dispute so a summary judgment is not reasonable.
Again, you should really learn how the law works before you continue to comment on it.
You're a p****.
And I'm a p****, so I'm definitely qualified to comment on it.
Did you get lost and think you ended up on the legal experts forum? And what law degree do you have Mr. I Have Time To Post 4000 Times?
J*******.
That's how I read it.
What I don't understand is the two mutually exclusive situations we have here.
For one, we're being told that motorola is doing all these things that are patently anti-competitive with their FRAND patents WRT Apple. The other part is that you have to assume that no lawyer could be so dumb as to green light doing something so clearly illegal. I tend to believe we're (the Apple fan public) are not being told the whole story by those experts we tend to quote often. If everything they were saying is really right, these lawsuits over the FRAND patents would be settled in Apple's favor every time before they even went to the jury. I don't get it.
Samsung found lawyers to do the same thing for them and they got slapped down. Why do you presume Motorola isn't going to be as well?
Samsung found lawyers to do the same thing for them and they got slapped down. Why do you presume Motorola isn't going to be as well?
Because its not convenient enough for him?
That's how I read it.
What I don't understand is the two mutually exclusive situations we have here.
For one, we're being told that motorola is doing all these things that are patently anti-competitive with their FRAND patents WRT Apple. The other part is that you have to assume that no lawyer could be so dumb as to green light doing something so clearly illegal. I tend to believe we're (the Apple fan public) are not being told the whole story by those experts we tend to quote often. If everything they were saying is really right, these lawsuits over the FRAND patents would be settled in Apple's favor every time before they even went to the jury. I don't get it.
One really would hope that logic might apply, but history has shown other companies apparently making equally unwise decisions, and the legal system still enjoys (or profits from) taking its time to come to the inevitable judgement.
Why doesn't Apple just buy up some FRAND IP and do the same to Android phones? Hell? they could buy up Qualcomm itself which I am sure has some IP in there too.
Because they would get a legal spanking for it. When a patent falls under FRAND you can't refuse to license it and you cant play games with different rules depending on your opponent. Apple knows this. Plus they respect the notion of IP, which is why they do things like ask before they create a music locker etc
Because its not convenient enough for him?
LOL sorry! I didn't realize being an Apple fan and shareholder made me a troll.
I just don't see large corporations filing lawsuits they know they're going to lose, and not just lose, but these lawsuits will result in anticompetitive charges being brought against them if you believe the slanted news we're fed here.
Is being skeptical when what you're told doesn't match up with what you see with your own eyes unacceptable in the world of fanbois?
Because they would get a legal spanking for it. When a patent falls under FRAND you can't refuse to license it and you cant play games with different rules depending on your opponent. Apple knows this. Plus they respect the notion of IP, which is why they do things like ask before they create a music locker etc
So why doesn't MOT know this? Do they want to attract anti-competition lawsuits? If so, why?
I just don't see large corporations filing lawsuits they know they're going to lose, and not just lose, but these lawsuits will result in anticompetitive charges being brought against them if you believe the slanted news we're fed here.
Because at worse they just loose?
Even a partial victory can clog Apple up, even if it's reversed.
When you have absolutely no hope of being competitive, why not seek refuge in the courts?
Is being skeptical when what you're told doesn't match up with what you see with your own eyes
You say skeptical, I say naive.
unacceptable in the world of fanbois?
Thank you for invoking the Godwins Law of Apple threads
Just give Motorola/Google all your patents, Apple. Can?t we all play nice? Why is Apple always such a bully?
I sure hope that was a joke.
You're a p****.
And I'm a p****, so I'm definitely qualified to comment on it.
Did you get lost and think you ended up on the legal experts forum? And what law degree do you have Mr. I Have Time To Post 4000 Times?
J*******.
Your lack of intelligent argument is noted.
What's the point of trolling a forum about a product that you don't like and don't use when you don't even have any intelligent arguments? You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.
You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.
Would he still get the paycheck though?
Edit: and don't forget the adulation of his "fans"?
LOL looks like google really think they can just do whatever they like with their newly acquired FRAND patents.
If google did not own motorola at the time, how was it google that thought that they could do whatever htey wanted?
This is what I'm talking about, in the above post. If they were really this ridiculous, they WOULD get laughed out of court and fined to boot. But that's not happening. So what are we missing?
What you are missing is that the main hearings haven't occurred, there have been some injunctions sought in preliminary hearings but the main bouts are still to come.
Because at worse they just loose?
Even a partial victory can clog Apple up, even if it's reversed.
When you have absolutely no hope of being competitive, why not seek refuge in the courts?
The worst outcome of filing anticompetitive lawsuits is losing the ability to enforce those patents that you're abusing. Actually the worst outcome is even worse than that, when the antitrust regulators get involved.
That's FAR worse than just being told you wasted everyone's time.
Your lack of intelligent argument is noted.
What's the point of trolling a forum about a product that you don't like and don't use when you don't even have any intelligent arguments? You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.
What are you talking about? I do like Apple products, and I do use them. I'm also a shareholder. I just don't believe everything I read from fans of a product. The coverage here is too Apple-positive and doesn't match with reality. A smart shareholder wants to know if there's a risk that the outlook for his company is not as good as it seems to be. A dumb one shouts down those who ask questions. That's you.