Judge cancels Apple patent-infringement trial against Motorola

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 75
    agramonteagramonte Posts: 345member


    Fantastic - Glad to see he wont have to waste his time on another idiotic Apple case.

  • Reply 22 of 75
    tribalogicaltribalogical Posts: 1,181member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by agramonte View Post


    Fantastic - Glad to see he wont have to waste his time on another idiotic Apple case.



     


     


    Not sure it's at all idiotic. The judge seems to have a lot of issues with process, and hasn't much addressed whether Apple's actual claims are legitimate. Instead, he seems to showing some bias, and to be deciding the case before it's been tried. I have a problem with that.


     


    Punishing Apple for "too many patents", "frivolous claims", etc…? At what point does Apple have a valid claim then? He says they must show injury. Perhaps they are prepared to, by presenting a case at trial?


     


    If they can prove it all without a trial, then why have one in the first place?


     


    As an example, Samsung has passed Apple as the world's largest smartphone manufacturer. Mostly on the back of the Galaxy line of "copycat" phones. Look, before iPhone, Samsung phones were just like all the other legacy clamshell old-tech phones… iPhone leapt out ahead of the market, and Samsung "slavishly copied" iPhone to keep up. Motorola also has "used" numerous Apple patents without permission (or so Apple asserts). So what is "idiotic" about fighting for one's patent rights?


     


    And why can't Apple have its day in court to address and possibly redress these alleged violations? And how is trying to do so "idiotic" in your mind?

  • Reply 23 of 75
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

    It's a sad, pathetic practice.


     


    Used by nearly every company, including Google.

  • Reply 24 of 75
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    macologist wrote: »
    I agree…  The • injury • step by step:  
    1. Apple Invents and Patents Something.  
    2. Apple rightfully expects to use that Something in their Products. 

    3. <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Apple rightfully expects to profit from the Sale of their Products that include that Something! </p>


    4. <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, use that Something by Apple in their own Products.  </p>


    5. <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company, profit from the Sale of their Products which include that Something by Apple, but THEY DON'T PAY APPLE for that Something that APPLE INVENTED!!!  </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Therefor • injury • is: </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    1. <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">A combination ## 4 + 5 = Cause the Unrealized Gain on Apple's Investment in Research & Development!!  </p>


    2. <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Apple Loses $$ every time a Motorolla, Samsung, or Another Company Product that uses that Something by Apple is sold, because of that Something by Apple, and also because it might be cheaper than Apple's Product, but still offers that Something my Apple!!!</p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">That's my basic understanding of How Patents are supposed to work, if all parties Do The Right Thing!!! But, it seems to me that sometimes some companies decide to Steal I.P. and Take Their Chances In Court, to see if they can get away with it!!! Even if they lose and are ordered to pay later, they are still coming out ahead, because they've sold a bunch of products while the Court Cases proceeded for years, or so…  </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Obviously, I've simplified thing my analogies, but To Say That There Was No Injury is another way of saying: </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Hey guys, I am not in the mood for this! It's too nuanced! It's Summer! I want to go to the beach!</p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>
      <li style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Basically, only US Government is supposed to print US Dollars!!! </li>

      <li style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">If anyone else does it, that's a crime! </li>

      <li style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">If anyone else needs US Dollars, they Borrow It!!!  </li>

      <li style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Thus Apple is the Only one to Profit form That Something That APPLE INVENTED!!! </li>

      <li style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Others can't be allowed just copy it! </li>

      <li style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">If they need it, they have to Borrow - License it from Apple!!!!</li>
    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">If Apple can't get a Fair Settlement in all those cases, they should Take All Such Case all the way to the Supreme Court, or wherever The Buck Stops!!!! Maybe there should be some PR Compaign in between exposing such IP Theft, Ridiculing the Copy Cats?! I don't know, but The Copy Cats can not be allowed to Steal and Get Away With It!!!! </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    <p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;"> </p>

    That all makes sense but you're forgetting one thing. No judgement has made as to whether or not the patents in question have been violated. The burden of proof is on Apple, a judge isnt going to simply believe there's injury just because Apple claims there is.
  • Reply 25 of 75
    johnnashjohnnash Posts: 128member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I haven't seen anyone link the judge's Daubert order in which he explains his problems with Apple's valuation of those patents. If you read it thru does make sense, to me at least, even if you'd rather it didn't.


     


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/94900952/Judge-Posner-s-Daubert-Order-in-Apple-v-Motorola



     


    Not only does it make sense, it shows the judge as being quite (QUITE) sharp.  He also seems to have a pretty damn good grasp of what's going on technology wise.


     


    He's also got a pretty good sense of humor, which is apparent in several places


     


    My favorite part:


     


     


     But there is no evidence that he is the only engineer who is familiar with computer hardware (or software) that duplicates the functionality of the ‘263. So again imagine this imaginary conversation between Napper and Motorola, which I’ll pretend hired Napper to advise on how at lowest cost to duplicate the patent’s functionality without infringement: Motorola: “What will it cost us to invent around, for that will place a ceiling on the royalty we’ll pay Apple?” Napper: “Brace yourself: $35 million greenbacks.” Motorola: “That sounds high; where did you get the figure?” Napper: “I asked an engineer who works for Apple.” Motorola: “Dummkopf! You’re fired.”


    Napper’s proposed testimony regarding damages for alleged infringement of Apple’s patent ‘263 is excluded. 

  • Reply 26 of 75
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I haven't seen anyone link the judge's Daubert order in which he explains his problems with Apple's valuation of those patents. If you read it thru does make sense, to me at least, even if you'd rather it didn't.


     


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/94900952/Judge-Posner-s-Daubert-Order-in-Apple-v-Motorola

     

    Thank you for linking this. If I may, I suggest that the author or editor of stories like this seek out the underlying documents and include them.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    This is far from over. Posner might be renowned but he's still just a Circuit Judge and here are levels above him. Apple and Samsung will just go the next step up. 


     


    Injury or not, if someone is violating your IP you have a right to smack them down with at least a legal order to cut it out or get fined in the future. 

     

    That’s not quite right. Despite the seemingly straightforward “right to exclude” of patent law, an injunction requires “irreparable” injury—essentially that which cannot be quantified or cured solely by money damages. This is according to the Supreme Court of the United States. As for damages, while the party asserting an infringed patent may be able to get lost profits, the baseline or minimum is a reasonable royalty for infringing acts. But if you read Judge Posner’s opinion, you’ll see he has found that the methodologies the experts used to arrive at their asserted reasonable royalty rates were flawed, unreliable, junk science, etc. In effect, the reasonable royalty could not be proven to be anything greater than zero.
  • Reply 27 of 75
    agramonteagramonte Posts: 345member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post


     


     


    Not sure it's at all idiotic. The judge seems to have a lot of issues with process, and hasn't much addressed whether Apple's actual claims are legitimate. Instead, he seems to showing some bias, and to be deciding the case before it's been tried. I have a problem with that.


     


    Punishing Apple for "too many patents", "frivolous claims", etc…? At what point does Apple have a valid claim then? He says they must show injury. Perhaps they are prepared to, by presenting a case at trial?


     


    If they can prove it all without a trial, then why have one in the first place?


     


    As an example, Samsung has passed Apple as the world's largest smartphone manufacturer. Mostly on the back of the Galaxy line of "copycat" phones. Look, before iPhone, Samsung phones were just like all the other legacy clamshell old-tech phones… iPhone leapt out ahead of the market, and Samsung "slavishly copied" iPhone to keep up. Motorola also has "used" numerous Apple patents without permission (or so Apple asserts). So what is "idiotic" about fighting for one's patent rights?


     


    And why can't Apple have its day in court to address and possibly redress these alleged violations? And how is trying to do so "idiotic" in your mind?



     


    The idea that a judge with his credentials is just being "bias" is hard to accept. "copycat"... "slavishly copied"... you claim that a day in court is a must yet judgement seems to have already been past before the case has even been lost by Samsung. You can not have it both ways.


     


    To continue to do something that has time and again proven to be futile - is in many ways, idiotic. 


     


    In the end a well respected Judge has canceled the case - hopefully Apple will now focus its legal actions instead of this "lets see what sticks" barrage of motions.

  • Reply 28 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    hellacool wrote: »
    That don't have the courage. Google is another American company with bottomless pockets same as Apple. It is much easier to go after the foreign companies that are at a disadvantage in the states in the hopes of winning. Then they can take that win and go after Google. If they went after Google directly, they would spend far more money. It's a sad, pathetic practice.

    Nonsense! Google isn't being sued by many companies because they aren't making much money on Android, so there's little to get from them. Hardware manufacturers are sued, because that's where the money is. Now that Google owns Moto, suing Moto is suing Google.
  • Reply 29 of 75
    hellacoolhellacool Posts: 759member
    melgross wrote: »
    Nonsense! Google isn't being sued by many companies because they aren't making much money on Android, so there's little to get from them. Hardware manufacturers are sued, because that's where the money is. Now that Google owns Moto, suing Moto is suing Google.

    You do understand Apple is not seeking any money? So your post is pretty much bupkis.
  • Reply 30 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I haven't seen anyone link the judge's Daubert order in which he explains his problems with Apple's valuation of those patents. If you read it thru does make sense, to me at least, even if you'd rather it didn't.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/94900952/Judge-Posner-s-Daubert-Order-in-Apple-v-Motorola
    It's interesting, but a good deal of all of this has little to do with how licensing fees are negotiated. I know this from my own company. Licensing fees are not negotiated around the cost of working around those patents, even assuming it can easily be done, but around the value of the patent as to the usability and salability of the device. Also as to how long it would take, if possible, to produce a workaround, and therefor, how long the party who is attempting to license the patent has to wait to get their competing product out the door, and how many sales they will lose because of it.

    In addition, most companies don't license many, or even most of their patents. They are used for competitive advantage. And the infringer isn't involved in paying a reasonable license fee, because no license fee that was reasonable would have been agreed to.

    In addition, as I said earlier, it's very difficult to prove damages, even though they are likely to be obviously occurring. The very fact that a company was aware they were infringing means that they thought it better to take a chance they wouldn't be raked over the coals about it than work it out themselves, possibly because working it out for themselves meant they would lose a launch window that would cost them dearly.

    As I said, this is a very complex issue, and arguments over software aren't always clear. We saw HTC's solution to the patent infringement. They said they "worked around the feature". Actually, they didn't. They removed it. Good chance that Motorola would have had to remove all of these features as well. And then their phones would have been just that much more uncompetitive. How much is that worth?

    I also disagree with Posner when he says that this "isn't a popularity contest".

    But that exactly what it is!!! Sales, and therefor, profits, are popularity contests. If Motorola sold 100,000 more phones because of all of the patent violations that occurred, including the ones Apple had to drop on Posner's insistence, then that could be lost sales for Apple. At an average of $550 per phone, that comes to $550,000,000. Who's to say that that number isn't plausible? How much should Apple receive for that. And should Motorola, being the one who took the IP be allowed to benefit from any of it?
  • Reply 31 of 75
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


     


    then let them sue Google.



     


    Google isn't the one monetizing the sales.  In fact, they are barely monetizing Android use even after-the-fact via the advertising that they are counting on.  Google gets more money in mobile advertising from iPhone users than Android users, so one might argue that - at least to date - Google has done harm to themselves with Android.  Not saying that will always be the case, but it appears to be so at the moment.  Add in the purchase of Motorola, and I'm not sure that the Android phone endeavor has been very beneficial for them at all!  Perhaps Google should sue Motorola (i.e.themselves) for stupidity.  ;-)


     


    Thompson

  • Reply 32 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    Thank you for linking this. If I may, I suggest that the author or editor of stories like this seek out the underlying docXuments and include them.



    That’s not quite right. Despite the seemingly straightforward “right to exclude” of patent law, an injunction requires “irreparable” injury—essentially that which cannot be quantified or cured solely by money damages. This is according to the Supreme Court of the United States. As for damages, while the party asserting an infringed patent may be able to get lost profits, the baseline or minimum is a reasonable royalty for infringing acts. But if you read Judge Posner’s opinion, you’ll see he has found that the methodologies the experts used to arrive at their asserted reasonable royalty rates were flawed, unreliable, junk science, etc. In effect, the reasonable royalty could not be proven to be anything greater than zero.

    Irreparable harm includes lost sales. Sales that may never be retrieved. So lost sales are always a part of injunctive relieve.

    But again, the difficulty is to prove this. While its pretty obvious that some lost sales will result (otherwise why add this infringing technology to your product?), proving it can be very difficult. I've seen companies lose cases because of no way to quantify a loss.

    That seems to be happening here. In a number of the testimony exclusions, there seems to be a lack of thought of a realization that the nunbers could be correct. So what if that chip that would have cost Motorola was the only way they could have done this without infringing? Posner throws out the testimony. But, despite the source, it could have been correct. In fact, it could have cost more, because the number I saw didn't seem to include the engineering to use that chip, both hardware and software. It could have cost a lot more to include it.

    The cost of a part is rarely the only cost, and sometimes is the least significant part of the cost. Also, the later in the design process a new component is introduced, the more expensive it is to incorporate it. Again, from my own experience in design and manufacturing. But you can get that information from any text on design and manufacturing.

    Also, there seems to be an assumption on the part of Posner, and even some of the experts that all of these infringements can be worked around. We don't know if any of them can be worked around, either in part, in full, or in a way that's satisfactory. If that's the case, the IP is worth far more, because Apple could just refuse a license. As these are not FRAND patents, there would be nothing that Motorola could do.
  • Reply 33 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    agramonte wrote: »
    The idea that a judge with his credentials is just being "bias" is hard to accept. "copycat"... "slavishly copied"... you claim that a day in court is a must yet judgement seems to have already been past before the case has even been lost by Samsung. You can not have it both ways.

    To continue to do something that has time and again proven to be futile - is in many ways, idiotic. 

    In the end a well respected Judge has canceled the case - hopefully Apple will now focus its legal actions instead of this "lets see what sticks" barrage of motions.

    He hasn't actually cancelled it yet, Apple has until Monday to respond.

    But let's not forget that if the case does result in a cancellation, Motorola loses too, as their absurd demands for their FRAND patents are lost as well, and they were asking far more than Apple is.
  • Reply 34 of 75
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,875member
    hellacool wrote: »
    You do understand Apple is not seeking any money? So your post is pretty much bupkis.

    Don't get nasty! I'm easily nastier than you. And when you don't understand the issues, you just look silly.

    I was responding to the remark that Google wasn't being sued. I replied, quite correctly, that it was because Google hadn't made much money off this, and so properly, hardware companies who did, were being sued instead. This is standard procedure. You first need to understand that, and what I said.

    Then, a company doesn't have to sue for cash, as you mistakenly seem to think, to make this a money issue. Apple doesn't want Motorola, or any other company profiting off their patented IP. This is also standard. No company wants that. So Apple isn't suing for a few measly tens of millions of dollars, which, by the way, Motorola would probably be delighted to pay, as it's an insignificant number.

    No, Apple want them to stop using said patented tech. This is reasonable, and again, is standard procedure. By preventing Motorola from using that, Apple could easily cut Motorola's sales, and could increase their own. This is money, my boy. Much more money than they would get by giving Motorola licenses. This is also something you need to understand.

    So, you bet this is about money! Lots of money. Far more money than Motorola could possibly afford to lose, especially since its smartphones sales are falling, and Motorola is in a bad financial position.

    So when you say my post is bupkis because Apple isn't suing for money, it just shows you don't have an understanding of the issues. It's ALWAYS about the money. That's all it ever is about.
  • Reply 35 of 75
    fotoformatfotoformat Posts: 288member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    SNIP


    73 isn't that old in this business. I doubt he's ready to be carried off just yet.


     


    Glad to hear it... I'm 5 years younger, so there's hope for me yet!

  • Reply 36 of 75
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post





    Talk about BS... You seem to be awash yourself. If they sold even one device that is infringing that would be an injury! If Motorola is infringing a patent, regardless of injury, they should be stopped. The judge's rarionale would be like saying there can be no charge of "attempted murder" as there was no injury. The fact of the matter is that google deliberately and flagrantly copied Apple's IP and Motorola, Samsung, HTC, et al are guilty of monetizing Apple's property.


    Not at all. Apple probably had to prove that it lost sales or lost money (or had its reputation damaged, or some other injury that could be quantified in dollars) as a result of Motorola's infringement. The ruling means that Apple didn't prove that it lost anything. Just because Motorola sold a few phones doesn't mean Apple lost any sales - the burden of proof was on Apple. Now there still could be a ruling that Motorola infringed, and Apple could get injunctive relief (a blocking of sales of the infringing phones).

  • Reply 37 of 75
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post


     

    ...Despite the seemingly straightforward “right to exclude” of patent law, an injunction requires “irreparable” injury—essentially that which cannot be quantified or cured solely by money damages. This is according to the Supreme Court of the United States...


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    Irreparable harm includes lost sales. Sales that may never be retrieved. So lost sales are always a part of injunctive relieve...


     


     


     


    It seems to me that "lost sales" can be cured by money damages, so they aren't irreparable. Law Talkin' Guy is making a very compelling point against an injunction. As to damages, Apple should prove it actually lost sales because of this patent's use by Motorola, but last thing I heard was that it was selling every iPhone it ever made, and making them as fast as it could.

  • Reply 38 of 75
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post





    That don't have the courage. Google is another American company with bottomless pockets same as Apple. It is much easier to go after the foreign companies that are at a disadvantage in the states in the hopes of winning. Then they can take that win and go after Google. If they went after Google directly, they would spend far more money. It's a sad, pathetic practice.


    So much for thermonuclear...

  • Reply 39 of 75
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


     


    Google isn't the one monetizing the sales.  In fact, they are barely monetizing Android use even after-the-fact via the advertising that they are counting on.  Google gets more money in mobile advertising from iPhone users than Android users, so one might argue that - at least to date - Google has done harm to themselves with Android.  Not saying that will always be the case, but it appears to be so at the moment.  Add in the purchase of Motorola, and I'm not sure that the Android phone endeavor has been very beneficial for them at all!  Perhaps Google should sue Motorola (i.e.themselves) for stupidity.  ;-)


     


    Thompson



     


     


    So you believe patents are only infringed if it achieves commercial gains?  Even if the source of the infringement has sold enormously worldwide?




    Cut it off at the head, Google.  Anything else is pointless fluff.

  • Reply 40 of 75
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    Nonsense! Google isn't being sued by many companies because they aren't making much money on Android, so there's little to get from them. Hardware manufacturers are sued, because that's where the money is. Now that Google owns Moto, suing Moto is suing Google.


     


    Google has money. Whether they are making actual income off Android or not is irrelevant.  



    They started the lawsuit before google purchased, so the only way that works is Google paid 12billion for a lawsuit...

Sign In or Register to comment.