Apple injunction against Motorola phones would be 'catastrophic,' judge says
A U.S. judge was unimpressed with arguments made by Apple at a Wednesday hearing meant to explain why injunctive relief is a suitable course of action against Motorola in the company's ongoing patent case with the Droid maker.
Although Judge Richard Posner, who is sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, didn't make any rulings at the court hearing he did say an injunction against Motorola's phones could have "catastrophic effects" and thus remains leery of Apple's position, reports Reuters.
Attorney Matthew Powers said that the iPhone maker was not seeking to ban on infringing handsets and would be satisfied with an injunction that forced certain Apple-patented technology currently being used by Motorola be replaced within three months. There are four Apple patents remaining from the complaint first filed in 2010. The number of patents asserted has been drastically reduced as part of a "winnowing" process called for by Judge Posner in February.
From the original filing:
"It means we're not competing with them where they are using our technology against us," Powers said.
Judge Richard Posner.
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer. He goes on to say that issuing an injunction wouldn't stop Apple from reasserting the claims again three months from now.
"That's all we need is new actions, new suits, because there's not enough litigation worldwide between Apple and Android," Judge Posner said.
At the heart of the matter is the U.S. patent system which has come under fire in light of the numerous lawsuits cropping up between tech companies on a near-daily basis.
Motorola itself has one patent left in the case, U.S. Patent No. 6,359,898 for 3G/UMTS connectivity, though the company has vowed to license it on a fair use basis in return for having the tech become a wireless industry standard. The claim is under review and raises many questions over FRAND licensing.
"I don't see how you can have injunction against the use of a standard essential patent," Judge Posner told Motorola.
It remains unclear what Judge Posner is planning for the suit, but the jurist already canceled the case temporarily and decided to rehear arguments two weeks later. Overall the judge has been critical of both parties throughout the suit and looks to be running a tight court allowing no room for attorney error.
Although Judge Richard Posner, who is sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, didn't make any rulings at the court hearing he did say an injunction against Motorola's phones could have "catastrophic effects" and thus remains leery of Apple's position, reports Reuters.
Attorney Matthew Powers said that the iPhone maker was not seeking to ban on infringing handsets and would be satisfied with an injunction that forced certain Apple-patented technology currently being used by Motorola be replaced within three months. There are four Apple patents remaining from the complaint first filed in 2010. The number of patents asserted has been drastically reduced as part of a "winnowing" process called for by Judge Posner in February.
From the original filing:
- U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 - "Method and apparatus for displaying and accessing control and status information in a computer system"
- U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 - "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics"
- U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 - "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data"
- U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263 - "Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data"
"It means we're not competing with them where they are using our technology against us," Powers said.
Judge Richard Posner.
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer. He goes on to say that issuing an injunction wouldn't stop Apple from reasserting the claims again three months from now.
"That's all we need is new actions, new suits, because there's not enough litigation worldwide between Apple and Android," Judge Posner said.
At the heart of the matter is the U.S. patent system which has come under fire in light of the numerous lawsuits cropping up between tech companies on a near-daily basis.
Motorola itself has one patent left in the case, U.S. Patent No. 6,359,898 for 3G/UMTS connectivity, though the company has vowed to license it on a fair use basis in return for having the tech become a wireless industry standard. The claim is under review and raises many questions over FRAND licensing.
"I don't see how you can have injunction against the use of a standard essential patent," Judge Posner told Motorola.
It remains unclear what Judge Posner is planning for the suit, but the jurist already canceled the case temporarily and decided to rehear arguments two weeks later. Overall the judge has been critical of both parties throughout the suit and looks to be running a tight court allowing no room for attorney error.
Comments
Oh, how horrible. No. Say it isn't so. /complete_and_utter_deadpan
[QUOTE]"That's all we need is new actions, new suits, because there's not enough litigation worldwide between Apple and Android," Judge Posner said.[/QUOTE]
Hey! Sarcasm is [B]our[/B] business, buddy. Your job is to enforce the frigging laws, not claim there are "too many lawsuits" if they're all valid. They get judged on their own terms.
You hijack an airplane? We blow up an entire airport of yours!
You steal our patents? We force you into bankruptcy!
I guess it's now okay to use any patents you want then (maybe) pay later.
Or not. I didn't know Apple was suing an operating system or vice-versa...
Great. Only in Illinois.
Quote:
Judge Posner posited that Motorola pay royalties to Apple instead of changing to possibly inferior technologies which would hurt the consumer.
Isn't that what patents are for? You develop a superior technology and use it to your own advantage and let your competitors develop their own technology. If you want you can license it, but in a competitive business you keep it to yourself. To me he is saying it is ok to steal your competitors technology and when they complain, demand that they license it to you because it is superior technology and it will hurt consumers if they don't.
This judge needs to recuse himself from these cases as I don't think he is thinking clearly.
Punishment should come after it is deemed a wrong not before, if an injunction is given and it turns out there was no patent infringement then how would Motorola recoup the lost sales?
Then why are there FRAND patents? Motorola invented the mobile phone, using your logic no one else should be allowed to make one.
Boo-hoo.
I think that old dude's gone senile.
Apple vs Android worldwide has absolutely no bearing on the facts being placed before him and shows that he is not being impartial in reaching decisions.
Consumers won't be hurt, if they want the tech they can buy it from Apple or a company Apple, as owner, CHOOSES to license it to, obviously that is NOT the Motorola subsidiary of Google.
Here's a simple idea judge. Make Motorola and all the other iPhone copy cats pay out the ass. That will promote.... wait for it..... THEIR OWN INNOVATIONS!!!! Why is it ok for these other companies to copy Apples hard work and research?? Why should they get a free ride? Oh poor Motorola will be devastated if the ruling is in Apple's favor, well maybe they should have thought about that before they turned on their photo copiers and blatantly ripped off someone else's ideas and innovations. Sucks to be them but they did it to themselves, now it's time to pay the piper. YOU DO THE CRIME YOU PAY THE FINE!!! I'm sick and tired of these judges letting the offending off because it would hurt their business. Tough crap! Come up with your own ideas. "it would force them to use inferior technologies" !!! well then innovate and make your own!! Sorry for the rant, I feel better now.
Yep. Provided the patent isn't under FRAND, there is no law that says Apple must license the patent. If this judge makes that call Apple will have an appeal filed within the hour. As for what will stop Apple from filing gain in 3 months how about Moto getting rid of the violating tech.
If this is about a prelim injunction, fine. Make Moto put up a bond to cover damages if the case goes against and let them have at. If this is the final judgement and they lost, screw them it should hurt. Injunct away.
If Moto wins they can sue for damages. Heck in Germany if you want an injunction you have to post a bond that is decided by the courts and goes to the other side if thy win. Not a bad idea to have in the US
He's not going to recuse himself, but he's in serious danger of having his decision overturned if he decides to force Apple to license the technology to Motorola. The entire purpose of patents is to provide an exclusivity to the inventor.
FRAND patents are entirely different - because the patent owner voluntarily agrees to FRAND terms in return for their technology being included in a standard. No one can force someone to offer their patent as FRAND if they don't wish to.
He may or may not be a great legal mind. That doesn't mean he can't made a mistake. Furthermore, that doesn't preclude his 'great legal mind' losing some sharpness at his age. If he does order Apple to license the patents, we'll see what the appeals court says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99
Posner is one of the greatest legal minds alive. You may disagree with the outcome, but you can't criticize his understanding of the law.
Even "one of the greatest legal minds alive" has a "best before date". From everything that I've read, I suspect that Judge Posner is past his "best before date".
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
Even "one of the greatest legal minds alive" has a "best before date". From everything that I've read, I suspect that Judge Posner is past his "best before date".
What have you read? Mainly appleinsider?
It is generally true that judges have a better understanding of technology, than nerds have of the law.
And it goes without saying that Posner has a better understanding of the law than anyone commenting on this thread.
Remember when Posner supposedly "dismissed" this very case just two weeks ago, but added the disclaimer that his decision "wasn't final"? People all over were saying he can't just throw out the case and that he would be appealed. Well, he allowed the case to continue which I think he was planning all along.
I don't see this as any different. I think he's getting sick of both sides and wants to get down to settling this and is using some harsh words to get everyone to "hurry up". Suggesting Apple should license to Motorola doesn't mean that he's going to try and force Apple to license (which he couldn't legally do anyway, IMO). He's making a strong suggestion that the two sides should sit down and maybe come up with some possible solutions, one of which may be licensing.
And Posner saying an injunction could have "catastrophic effects" doesn't mean he wouldn't consider it. For example, if Motorola was being unreasonable to an Apple offer, then Posner could say "well, we gave you a viable option so now it's come down to an injunction". Or he could be suggesting to Motorola to "come up with a solution of your own because what you're facing is catastrophic".
I think people shouldn't take his statements to mean he's already decided how thing's should go - I think he just likes to stir the pot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl
What have you read? Mainly appleinsider?
It is generally true that judges have a better understanding of technology, than nerds have of the law.
And it goes without saying that Posner has a better understanding of the law than anyone commenting on this thread.
So you believe that his view that because it would be better for customers buying Motorola phones that Apple should be forced to license technology they created to differentiate their products and patented to protect to their competitors. You want to talk about killing innovation. Apple failed to protect themselves with the original Mac OS and that screwing over was part of what helped kill their innovative spirit. Just think if they didn't take off for 10 years and where we would be by now. We got stuck waiting for Microsoft to innovate, forgetting that their only successes were a poor copy of Mac OS they called Windows, and Office which the main parts were actually created for the original Mac, Word and Excel. Posner is clearly focused on sharing Apples tech with whoever wants to use it to give consumers access to it. They have access to it. They buy an Apple product. Period!
ALL of these patent suits are clearly aimed at Android, via the handset makers.