Judge calls Apple motion to reconsider Motorola ruling 'troubling'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    Am I the only one who found this article rather confusing in all respects?



    It seems like Apple, the Judge and the writer of this article were all on crazy pills.



    Nope. 100% agree.
  • Reply 22 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong."



    Sounds like Apple is standing by Jobs's words.
  • Reply 23 of 55
    ouraganouragan Posts: 424member
    Quote:

    Overall, Apple's attempt to contest parts of the judge's original order was seen as slipshod. It is unclear why the company's attorneys would seek to oppose the previous order, or how they so blatantly misinterpreted the court's documented findings.





    If I may shed some light for the average reader:



    1- The way to object to a Court's decision is through an appeal to a higher Court, not through a Motion to reconsider a decision;



    2- A Motion to reconsider is acceptable only to correct obvious errors of fact if these facts matter to Court procedures that will follow;



    3- In defence of Apple's attorneys, and their sloppy work, they objected a Court's decision of the previous day and may have lacked time to ponder their own motion. Reacting too promptly invites the sort of sloppiness illustrated by this case where Apple's attorneys rely on their own general impression and mistakenly take arguments from Motorola's lawyers as if they had been accepted by Judge Richard A. Posner, then proceed to quote from the Court's decision on some other argument as a way to prove their own allegations.





    The March 29, 2012 and March 30, 2012 decisions of Judge Richard A. Posner are decisions on preliminary motions that were presented by lawyers as they prepare their case for trial on the merit of the case, i.e. ask a judge to decide whether or not a patent has been infringed. But a trial on the merit of the case may be years away. And we may never know whether or not Apple holds a valid patent if the parties settle out of Court, especially with a non-disclosure clause.





    \\\
  • Reply 24 of 55
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I think part of what irritates you is I usually do know what I'm commenting on and prepared to prove it when inevitably questioned.



    Of course you would think so. What a surprise!
  • Reply 25 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    If I may shed some light for the average reader:



    1- The way to object to a Court's decision is through an appeal to a higher Court, not through a Motion to reconsider a decision;



    2- A Motion to reconsider is acceptable only to correct obvious errors of fact if these facts matter to Court procedures that will follow;



    3- In defence of Apple's attorneys, and their sloppy work, they objected a Court's decision of the previous day and may have lacked time to ponder their own motion. Reacting too promptly invites the sort of sloppiness illustrated by this case where Apple's attorneys rely on their own general impression and mistakenly take arguments from Motorola's lawyers as if they had been accepted by Judge Richard A. Posner, then proceed to quote from the Court's decision on some other argument as a way to prove their own allegations.





    The March 29, 2012 and March 30, 2012 decisions of Judge Richard A. Posner are decisions on preliminary motions that were presented by lawyers as they prepare their case for trial on the merit of the case, i.e. ask a judge to decide whether or not a patent has been infringed. But a trial on the merit of the case may be years away. And we may never know whether or not Apple holds a valid patent if the parties settle out of Court, especially with a non-disclosure clause.





    \\\



    Nicely explained. It sounds as tho you have an actual legal background.



    EDIT: I see you do! Nice to have a attorney explain it.
  • Reply 26 of 55
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member
    The language of the order does seem confusing. While Posner is right that Apple incorrectly quoted him in their motion, presumably by mistake, he appears to be wrong that they do not disagree on the claim in question. He clearly did reject the horizontal finger swipe as a heuristic for "next item" on page 4 of his order:



    Quote:

    "So I reject the horizontal finger swipe as a potential structure for function [3]."





    Function [3] being: "a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items".



    The issue that they are asking him to reconsider is that rejection, but he seems to have deflected the request rather than addressed it.



    What am I missing here?
  • Reply 27 of 55
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,115member
    Sounds like Apple put in the kids sitting on the bench.
  • Reply 28 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    Isn't it possible that the Judge actually misunderstood, he says: "Apple sees disagreement where there is none."

    Uh, wouldn't Apple best be able to judge if they were in disagreement? Who is Posner to say that they don't in fact disagree?




    I disagree. The judge is likely the one who misunderstands.
  • Reply 29 of 55
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't believe you understand the legal process if you think intentionally irritating the judge who will be ruling on the merits of your case and closely examining the rest of your arguments is a proven legal manuever. IMHO it's much more likely to be series of misunderstandings from Apple legal than part of some brilliant intentional plan to try and appear incompetent and wasteful of the court's time.



    I think this isn't so much a reflection on Apple itself, but serves more a a reason for Apple's management to take a hard look at their representation in Posner's courtroom to assure this stays an isolated error.



    Once again, you're confused. It's a final decision. Posner will no longer be ruling on this matter. While he will have to rule on other matters, the issue of the validity of the patent is settled. Apple loses nothing by pissing him off, but there may be a number of reasons why their actions might make sense. As I said, it could be positioning themselves to make Posner's decision LESS likely to be overturned on appeals.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    If I may shed some light for the average reader:



    1- The way to object to a Court's decision is through an appeal to a higher Court, not through a Motion to reconsider a decision;



    Not true. There are situations where either one is appropriate. In particular, Apple's motion may have been setting the stage to make their position stronger if/when Motorola appeals.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    2- A Motion to reconsider is acceptable only to correct obvious errors of fact if these facts matter to Court procedures that will follow;



    Not at all. It can also be a strategy to strengthen your case on appeal.

    For example:

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/motion-to-reconsider/

    "It is often a prelude to an appeal of a court decision"

    It is VERY common to use a motion to reconsider to set things up the way you want for an appeal.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    3- In defence of Apple's attorneys, and their sloppy work, they objected a Court's decision of the previous day and may have lacked time to ponder their own motion. Reacting too promptly invites the sort of sloppiness illustrated by this case where Apple's attorneys rely on their own general impression and mistakenly take arguments from Motorola's lawyers as if they had been accepted by Judge Richard A. Posner, then proceed to quote from the Court's decision on some other argument as a way to prove their own allegations.



    Maybe they acted precipitously and maybe they had a plan. No one knows.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    The March 29, 2012 and March 30, 2012 decisions of Judge Richard A. Posner are decisions on preliminary motions that were presented by lawyers as they prepare their case for trial on the merit of the case, i.e. ask a judge to decide whether or not a patent has been infringed. But a trial on the merit of the case may be years away. And we may never know whether or not Apple holds a valid patent if the parties settle out of Court, especially with a non-disclosure clause.





    \\\



    True. However, from Apple's perspective, Posner's decision was a HUGE win and his comments today do not materially change that. The patent has been held to be valid and infringed. That makes Apple's position infinitely stronger in negotiation.



    And the fact that their strategy may have been to weaken Motorola's chances on appeal makes it worthwhile to take the risk of looking bad in front of the trial judge - since, as you say, it's unlikely to ever end up in front of Posner for the rest of the case.
  • Reply 30 of 55
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Great news, I hope more judges follow suit and that all of these bogus claims will just disappear, enough is enough,
  • Reply 31 of 55
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    I disagree. The judge is likely the one who misunderstands.



    A judge, you, a judge you, who do you think understands less.
  • Reply 32 of 55
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    Great news, I hope more judges follow suit and that all of these bogus claims will just disappear, enough is enough,



    Which bogus claims are you referring to? The judge ruled that the patent is valid and infringed.
  • Reply 33 of 55
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    He's regarded as one of the most brilliant and well-respected jurists in the US. The most cited legal scholar of the century with numerous books to his credit, Florian Mueller refers to him as a "rockstar" in the legal community. He's certainly not your run-of-the-mill Judge according to every article I can find on him.



    I'm assuming he's also human, has the ability to be wrong, the ability to realise it, and the ability to change his mind?



    Or is he too brilliant for all that rubbish?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I think part of what irritates you is I usually do know what I'm commenting on and prepared to prove it when inevitably questioned.







    Yes, we're very proud of you here. Now if only we could train you to be a little more objective.



    Hell, then we might even decide to keep you!
  • Reply 34 of 55
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Which bogus claims are you referring to? The judge ruled that the patent is valid and infringed.



    Motorola's claims but it doesn't really matter nothing is going to come of it. Who really cares about some locking mechanism that Motorola has already replaced. What devices does Apple think they'll get taken off of the market, something that has already been discontinued. The only people who wins here is the lawyers.
  • Reply 35 of 55
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    Hell, then we might even decide to keep you!



    Yep that's what we need more people agreeing with you. I kid, I kid
  • Reply 36 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Which bogus claims are you referring to? The judge ruled that the patent is valid and infringed.



    No sir, no sir and no sir. The case has not been tried, so no infringement has been proved and the patent has not been ruled valid. I can only assume you've confused proof of patent validity with the arguments made and accepted in claims construction.



    If your statement that the patent has been ruled valid and infringed were true then the only thing remaining would be establishing the damages. That's clearly not what this is about at this stage.
  • Reply 37 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    Yes, we're very proud of you here. Now if only we could train you to be a little more objective.



    Hell, then we might even decide to keep you!



    Thank you for the encouraging comments. I'll work harder at recognizing if I'm not being objective too..
  • Reply 38 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Which bogus claims are you referring to? The judge ruled that the patent is valid and infringed.



    It has not yet gone to trial. This legal stuff is not your strongest area.



    You've had considerable trouble understanding the Proview situation, despite repeated explanations.
  • Reply 39 of 55
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,216member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Nicely explained. It sounds as tho you have an actual legal background.



    EDIT: I see you do! Nice to have a attorney explain it.



    I'm assuming he is French speaking judging by his grammar.
  • Reply 40 of 55
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    I'm assuming he is French speaking judging by his grammar.



Sign In or Register to comment.