Not really. You're referring to tying arrangements, which doesn't exist in Google's case. It's difficult to prove a this specific tying arrangement is illegal even if we were to call it one. Google isn't forcing people using Google to use Google+.
Google, which holds the dominant market position as far as search is concerned, is being accused of manipulating its search results to favor its own services, such as Google+, at the expense of competitors such as Facebook. Because Google indirectly monetizes their services, this anticompetitive action is hard to prove. In my opinion, if true, it's directly analogous to the whole Microsoft IE vs Netscape kerfuffle years ago.
Regardless, the point is that patents are legally granted monopolies and Apple is well within its legal right to assert and defend them. In fact, as the value of a patent is directly tied to how well it is defended, and since such intellectual property is owned by the shareholders, Apple's management as stewards acting on behalf of the shareholders have an obligation to do so.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Ad hominem much?
AppleInsider generally has a higher proportion of educated posters, as many are investors
Some may well be MBAs. I'm not and don't pretend to be, but I do have a four year degree in business and actual experience to go with it. In my experience, there are plenty of dumb MBAs (or analogous degrees in related fields) and plenty of smart "laymen".
Those arguments make sense for an ITC ruling, considering that it's not final. A minor potential infringement should not be a reason to block sales completely, and in the face of booming sales clearly no protective measures need to be taken immediately. It would have been different if the infringing product was affecting Apple's sales. Thus, no urgent actions by the ITC are needed prior to the decision of the courts.
In the end, some money will change pockets. Nothing that concerns the end user.
On the other hand, the ITC effectively declared that Motorola is infringing, but just said they aren't going to do anything about it. It doesn't look like Motorola has much chance at trial.
3. Apple has a team of lawyers who are responsible for recommending litigation where appropriate or settlement.
4. Apple has a management team selected by the Board which is responsible for making decisions on whether to sue or settle.
5. The Board is elected by Apple's shareholders and therefore represents the shareholders.
Now, given that, what makes you think that anyone cares whether YOU think that Apple is gaining anything from these legal battles? Apple obviously does and they're the ones in a position to know. One doesn't need to be an MBA or patent lawyer to recognize that it's Apple's decision based on whatever knowledge and experience they have - which is many, many orders of magnitude higher than yours.
Agree on most counts but not #4. The management team might have been approved by the board but it was not selected by them. On #5, do shareholders really *elect* directors? It's more a process of approval closer to the nomination of key government officials by the President and approval by Congress, isn't it?
Not really. You're referring to tying arrangements, which doesn't exist in Google's case. It's difficult to prove a this specific tying arrangement is illegal even if we were to call it one. Google isn't forcing people using Google to use Google+.
Not quite, but Google is forcing its employees to find ways to coerce and trick people into using it. I exaggerate, but not by much.
Agree on most counts but not #4. The management team might have been approved by the board but it was not selected by them. On #5, do shareholders really *elect* directors? It's more a process of approval closer to the nomination of key government officials by the President and approval by Congress, isn't it?
The management team serves as long as the board is happy with them. It doesn't really matter who 'selected' them.
And, yes, the shareholders elect the board members. If the majority of shareholders ever decide that they don't want a board member, they can vote for someone else.
Based on Googles arguements and dismissals of Apple, Apple should be able to open a search portal without any objection from Google seeing as Google are so HUGE in search as to be unassailable.
The management team serves as long as the board is happy with them. It doesn't really matter who 'selected' them.
Well, I was simply addressing what you wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, yes, the shareholders elect the board members. If the majority of shareholders ever decide that they don't want a board member, they can vote for someone else.
The term election is indeed commonly used in the context of corporate boards of governance. But in a real election, the electorate chooses from a list of candidates. In the case of most companies, the shareholders get to say yes or no, but do not get to choose from a list. So, in reality, shareholders approve nominations but do not elect. In other words, they do not get to "vote for someone else" in the traditional sense.
On the other hand, the ITC effectively declared that Motorola is infringing, but just said they aren't going to do anything about it. It doesn't look like Motorola has much chance at trial.
Specifically, the ITC said that in their opinion, patent '828 is valid, but NOT infringed by Motorola's implementation.
They stated that patent '607 would have been infringed by a literal reading of the patent, but then they upheld the ID's opinion of non-violation because they believe the patent is invalid. They reversed the ID's opinion on invalidity due to anticipation (the ID had originally asserted that another single patent made all the exact same essential claims; the full panel disagreed). But they upheld the ID's opinion on invalidity due to obviousness (the full panel believes that a combination of two or more other patents would have inevitably led somebody skilled in the art to the exact same conclusion; they listed the two documents they believe leads to the obviousness decision).
They'll be releasing another document which expands on their reasoning behind their '607 decision in more detail.
Patent '430 appears to be the one for which the ITC's final ruling provides the least detail. They also found that '430 would have been violated by a literal reading, but then they said that the patent is invalid anyway. I haven't seen anything clearly explaining their reasoning for invalidating '430 except their own cryptic reference to another ITC investigation (337-TA-724, which was the S3-vs-Apple suit which was thrown out in November 2011). Curiously, I also haven't seen any specific reasoning for the ITC's final decision to throw out 337-TA-724 either.
Patent '430 also expires in 2013, about the same time this whole mess will probably finish winding its way through the courts. So in the end, Motorola may end up having to pay damages for past violation of patent '430, but I suspect it will have expired long before the courts would have gotten around to issuing any injunctions on future sales of devices based on the '430 patent.
The ITC isn't the final arbiter. It will eventually be up to the courts to decide if the patents were infringed. Recent ITC rulings suggest that the ITC almost never rules a patent to be infringed.
In any event, the logic here is bogus.
1. "It was only a modest infringement, so it's OK"
and
2. "Apple has lots of money, so they don't deserve patent protection"
Neither one of those is a valid legal argument- and is further evidence that the ITC is not going to enforce any patents from anyone. The courts will decide.
Good observation.
I suspect that we need to be aware of what the ITC's purpose in life is, and it is not to be the IP police for all matters, but to be a 'fast track' source of determination for if someone's "opportunity" for access to a market is being blocked by a legal IP dispute.
With such a scope, the ITC rulings will usually be against a marketplace leader unless it is an impossible-to-ignore rip-off, since there's a Catch-22 invoked in that the marketplace leader can't really prove that he was indeed being significantly and materially hurt by infringements until he has fallen from the lead.
Based on Googles arguements and dismissals of Apple, Apple should be able to open a search portal without any objection from Google seeing as Google are so HUGE in search as to be unassailable.
Idiots
Apple should ask Microsoft (Bing) and Yahoo how successful they've been... Google won't object to anyone opening a search portal, but odds are no one will be able to beat them. I've used all sorts of search engines, map searches, business lookups, etc..., but Google is on top for a reason...
That being said, there's room for both Apple, Google, and others in this world (everyone except Facebook - they're truly evil). Having more than 1 ecosystem is absolutely necessary for consumer choice, and innovation. Without competition, companies don't innovate.
Comments
Not really. You're referring to tying arrangements, which doesn't exist in Google's case. It's difficult to prove a this specific tying arrangement is illegal even if we were to call it one. Google isn't forcing people using Google to use Google+.
Google, which holds the dominant market position as far as search is concerned, is being accused of manipulating its search results to favor its own services, such as Google+, at the expense of competitors such as Facebook. Because Google indirectly monetizes their services, this anticompetitive action is hard to prove. In my opinion, if true, it's directly analogous to the whole Microsoft IE vs Netscape kerfuffle years ago.
Regardless, the point is that patents are legally granted monopolies and Apple is well within its legal right to assert and defend them. In fact, as the value of a patent is directly tied to how well it is defended, and since such intellectual property is owned by the shareholders, Apple's management as stewards acting on behalf of the shareholders have an obligation to do so.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Ad hominem much?
AppleInsider generally has a higher proportion of educated posters, as many are investors
Some may well be MBAs. I'm not and don't pretend to be, but I do have a four year degree in business and actual experience to go with it. In my experience, there are plenty of dumb MBAs (or analogous degrees in related fields) and plenty of smart "laymen".
Those arguments make sense for an ITC ruling, considering that it's not final. A minor potential infringement should not be a reason to block sales completely, and in the face of booming sales clearly no protective measures need to be taken immediately. It would have been different if the infringing product was affecting Apple's sales. Thus, no urgent actions by the ITC are needed prior to the decision of the courts.
In the end, some money will change pockets. Nothing that concerns the end user.
On the other hand, the ITC effectively declared that Motorola is infringing, but just said they aren't going to do anything about it. It doesn't look like Motorola has much chance at trial.
Hey Insider members... what would you call these statements? Is this irony or is this just a pot kettle situation? Is there any other name for it?
Apparently anything goes these days.
Apparently anything goes these days.
Wow did he get banned for that?
Wow did he get banned for that?
You'd see if he was banned. You'd also see if his comment had been edited by a mod.
Here are the known facts:
1. Apple has sued some companies.
2. Apple has been sued by some companies.
3. Apple has a team of lawyers who are responsible for recommending litigation where appropriate or settlement.
4. Apple has a management team selected by the Board which is responsible for making decisions on whether to sue or settle.
5. The Board is elected by Apple's shareholders and therefore represents the shareholders.
Now, given that, what makes you think that anyone cares whether YOU think that Apple is gaining anything from these legal battles? Apple obviously does and they're the ones in a position to know. One doesn't need to be an MBA or patent lawyer to recognize that it's Apple's decision based on whatever knowledge and experience they have - which is many, many orders of magnitude higher than yours.
Agree on most counts but not #4. The management team might have been approved by the board but it was not selected by them. On #5, do shareholders really *elect* directors? It's more a process of approval closer to the nomination of key government officials by the President and approval by Congress, isn't it?
Not really. You're referring to tying arrangements, which doesn't exist in Google's case. It's difficult to prove a this specific tying arrangement is illegal even if we were to call it one. Google isn't forcing people using Google to use Google+.
Not quite, but Google is forcing its employees to find ways to coerce and trick people into using it. I exaggerate, but not by much.
Agree on most counts but not #4. The management team might have been approved by the board but it was not selected by them. On #5, do shareholders really *elect* directors? It's more a process of approval closer to the nomination of key government officials by the President and approval by Congress, isn't it?
The management team serves as long as the board is happy with them. It doesn't really matter who 'selected' them.
And, yes, the shareholders elect the board members. If the majority of shareholders ever decide that they don't want a board member, they can vote for someone else.
Apple has the option to dispute the decision in federal court,
Key detail. This isn't a court ruling and what the ITC thinks has zero baring on how the courts could decide.
How about defend the stuff that is appropriate,
Apple is defending what they feel is appropriate. It's their IP so their call.
You'd see if he was banned. You'd also see if his comment had been edited by a mod.
Definitely meant to ask how did he not get banned. Lol
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate,
How are you in a position to determine this? Oh, I know. You don't have billions of dollars, brand integrity, and market position at stake.
Anyone can defend anything they like. Anyone can file a claim for anything. Then, it's up to the courts to determine where you stand.
Last I checked, no court or regulatory body told Apple to stop exercising their right to appeal to the courts on matters that concern them.
Key detail. This isn't a court ruling and what the ITC thinks has zero baring on how the courts could decide.
In addition, the ITC almost never rules against patent infringers.
Idiots
The management team serves as long as the board is happy with them. It doesn't really matter who 'selected' them.
Well, I was simply addressing what you wrote
And, yes, the shareholders elect the board members. If the majority of shareholders ever decide that they don't want a board member, they can vote for someone else.
The term election is indeed commonly used in the context of corporate boards of governance. But in a real election, the electorate chooses from a list of candidates. In the case of most companies, the shareholders get to say yes or no, but do not get to choose from a list. So, in reality, shareholders approve nominations but do not elect. In other words, they do not get to "vote for someone else" in the traditional sense.
On the other hand, the ITC effectively declared that Motorola is infringing, but just said they aren't going to do anything about it. It doesn't look like Motorola has much chance at trial.
Specifically, the ITC said that in their opinion, patent '828 is valid, but NOT infringed by Motorola's implementation.
They stated that patent '607 would have been infringed by a literal reading of the patent, but then they upheld the ID's opinion of non-violation because they believe the patent is invalid. They reversed the ID's opinion on invalidity due to anticipation (the ID had originally asserted that another single patent made all the exact same essential claims; the full panel disagreed). But they upheld the ID's opinion on invalidity due to obviousness (the full panel believes that a combination of two or more other patents would have inevitably led somebody skilled in the art to the exact same conclusion; they listed the two documents they believe leads to the obviousness decision).
They'll be releasing another document which expands on their reasoning behind their '607 decision in more detail.
Patent '430 appears to be the one for which the ITC's final ruling provides the least detail. They also found that '430 would have been violated by a literal reading, but then they said that the patent is invalid anyway. I haven't seen anything clearly explaining their reasoning for invalidating '430 except their own cryptic reference to another ITC investigation (337-TA-724, which was the S3-vs-Apple suit which was thrown out in November 2011). Curiously, I also haven't seen any specific reasoning for the ITC's final decision to throw out 337-TA-724 either.
Patent '430 also expires in 2013, about the same time this whole mess will probably finish winding its way through the courts. So in the end, Motorola may end up having to pay damages for past violation of patent '430, but I suspect it will have expired long before the courts would have gotten around to issuing any injunctions on future sales of devices based on the '430 patent.
The ITC isn't the final arbiter. It will eventually be up to the courts to decide if the patents were infringed. Recent ITC rulings suggest that the ITC almost never rules a patent to be infringed.
In any event, the logic here is bogus.
1. "It was only a modest infringement, so it's OK"
and
2. "Apple has lots of money, so they don't deserve patent protection"
Neither one of those is a valid legal argument- and is further evidence that the ITC is not going to enforce any patents from anyone. The courts will decide.
Good observation.
I suspect that we need to be aware of what the ITC's purpose in life is, and it is not to be the IP police for all matters, but to be a 'fast track' source of determination for if someone's "opportunity" for access to a market is being blocked by a legal IP dispute.
With such a scope, the ITC rulings will usually be against a marketplace leader unless it is an impossible-to-ignore rip-off, since there's a Catch-22 invoked in that the marketplace leader can't really prove that he was indeed being significantly and materially hurt by infringements until he has fallen from the lead.
-hh
Based on Googles arguements and dismissals of Apple, Apple should be able to open a search portal without any objection from Google seeing as Google are so HUGE in search as to be unassailable.
Idiots
Apple should ask Microsoft (Bing) and Yahoo how successful they've been... Google won't object to anyone opening a search portal, but odds are no one will be able to beat them. I've used all sorts of search engines, map searches, business lookups, etc..., but Google is on top for a reason...
That being said, there's room for both Apple, Google, and others in this world (everyone except Facebook - they're truly evil). Having more than 1 ecosystem is absolutely necessary for consumer choice, and innovation. Without competition, companies don't innovate.