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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
Sounds like Apple is standing by Jobs's words.
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.
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!
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.
EDIT: I see you do! Nice to have a attorney explain it.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree. The judge is likely the one who misunderstands.
A judge, you, a judge you, who do you think understands less.
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.
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?
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!
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.
Hell, then we might even decide to keep you!
Yep that's what we need more people agreeing with you. I kid, I kid
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.
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..
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.
Nicely explained.
EDIT: I see you do! Nice to have a attorney explain it.
I'm assuming he is French speaking judging by his grammar.
I'm assuming he is French speaking judging by his grammar.