To rule for an injunction there are four things that need to be established according to law. Proving damages is one of those. Apple could not satisfactorily establish the monetary damage they were claiming (and may have had a tactical reason not to set a reasonable and specific number) thus not fulfilling the requirements for an injunction. The judgement didn't come from thin-air when he denied both Apple and Motorola's requests.
Being equally unfair to both sides, does not fairness make. And, it's unfair in the sense that neither side received justice because the judge did not listen to either side's arguments with an open mind, but merely to collect decision fodder to support his already made judgment. So, no, the judgement didn't come from thin air, it cam directly from Posner's pre-established biases.
It's more than curious that he specifically requested this case, then afterward made statements indicating his bias. It would seem that he had an agenda from the outset. I think the phrase judicial misconduct would be applicable, and his handling of the case grounds for impeachment.
Judge Posner has filed one additional document, this one commenting on an email he received from Apple counsel a few days after his dismissal of both Apple and Motorola claims with prejudice. In his reply he notes Apple trying a bit of legal trickery in an attempt to get a do-over on two of it's patent claims.
"The email is from Apple and concerns the judgment of dismissal with prejudice that I directed be entered on June 22, 2012. Much of the email is taken up with rulings that I made in the course of the litigation. On appeal from a final judgment a party can seek appellate review of any interlocutory ruling that has not been rendered moot by the final judgment. There is no occasion for specifying those rulings in the judgment itself.
Apple refers to a January 19, 2012, email in which it said it “will move”—not that it was moving—to sever its claims relating to alleged infringement by Motorola of two patents, the ‘721 and the ‘983, and to stay further action on them in this litigation, pending the Federal Circuit’s resolution of an appeal involving the same patents in a suit between Apple and HTC. Apple v. HTC, No. 2012-1025. The exact language of the January 19 email, so far as pertinent to severance and stay, is: “Apple will move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 to either sever its infringement claims as to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,481,721 and 6,275,983, and/or to stay resolution of those claims pending the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a pending appeal involving the 721 and 983 patents.” Notice that the email does not commit to sever. The email itself was thus not a motion for a severance or for a stay, and I took no action in response to it. That was five months ago and until yesterday, June 25, I had not heard a further peep from Apple about these two patents. I assumed it had abandoned its claims.
Apple indicates in its email that it wants me to sever those patent claims and stay action on them. Coyly, it still has not filed a motion to sever, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The informal suggestion in the January 19 email, never followed up, of a possible future motion to sever the two patents did not survive the entry of final judgment. Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 882–83. At the hearing on June 7, I indicated my tentative decision to dismiss the entire case, yet that did not trigger a motion to sever the ‘721 and ‘983 patent claims either. That decision became final on June 22. By its inaction, which given the quality and resources of Apple’s legal team I must assume is strategic, Apple has forfeited any right to a severance.
Judge Posner has filed one additional document, this one commenting on an email he received from Apple counsel a few days after his dismissal of both Apple and Motorola claims with prejudice. In his reply he notes Apple trying a bit of legal trickery in an attempt to get a do-over on two of it's patent claims.
Don't worry, they'll get a do-over, when Posner is overturned and removed from the case.
Being equally unfair to both sides, does not fairness make. And, it's unfair in the sense that neither side received justice because the judge did not listen to either side's arguments with an open mind, but merely to collect decision fodder to support his already made judgment. So, no, the judgement didn't come from thin air, it cam directly from Posner's pre-established biases.
Clearly, you are correct. Let's say that a robber steals a woman's purse and keeps the money. The judge could deny both injunctions and throw the case out of court and it is fair to neither party (although the robber gets a break, of course). That doesn't mean that justice was served.
GoogleGuy is just happy any time Google and their licensees get away with stealing.
It's more than curious that he specifically requested this case, then afterward made statements indicating his bias. It would seem that he had an agenda from the outset. I think the phrase judicial misconduct would be applicable, and his handling of the case grounds for impeachment.
Yes, that's clearly an issue - and makes the entire thing appear biased. As before, there's no proof that the judge actually WAS biased, but the above action combined with some of his rulings (for example, not allowing Apple's marketing experts testify and then saying that Apple didn't prove damages) makes itl very, very likely that Apple will win their appeal.
Clearly, you are correct. Let's say that a robber steals a woman's purse and keeps the money. The judge could deny both injunctions and throw the case out of court and it is fair to neither party (although the robber gets a break, of course). That doesn't mean that justice was served.
GoogleGuy is just happy any time Google and their licensees get away with stealing.
If a woman gets her purse stolen (which is a criminal offense no matter how much money was in it) I have no idea how an injunction would figure into it.
...and still the name-calling Jr? That's something I might expect from my teenage son and his friends, but certainly not someone who wants us to believe he has a PhD. In case you forgot your own good advice just check the signature. The forums will be more pleasant for everyone if we all could just follow the rules we all agreed to.
If a woman gets her purse stolen (which is a criminal offense no matter how much money was in it) I have no idea how an injunction would figure into it.
...and still the name-calling Jr? That's something I might expect from my teenage son and his friends, but certainly not someone who wants us to believe he has a PhD. In case you forgot your own advice just check the signature. Why do you think forum rules against personal attacks don't apply to you? The forums will be more pleasant for everyone if you could just follow the rules you and everyone else agreed to.
Pointing out your by now obvious association with Google isn't a personal attack, it's simply making sure everyone understands the context of your remarks. Context matters, as does honesty and integrity.
(Although, I can understand why you'd like us all to ignore your "shill" status.)
But, regardless of the analogy's strengths or weaknesses, the level of bias and predetermined judgment demonstrated in this case indicates that, despite the fact the outcome was favorable to your paymasters, justice was violated.
I'm amazed at some of the anti-Posner comments in this thread. To suggest he is biased, losing his grip on reality, doesn't understand because he only uses his phone for email or is too ignorant to sit on the bench just because you don't agree with his comments seems bizarre to me.
The posters here having a debate about the actual subject, rather than the person, are very informative, so why the attacks on someone who probably has more understanding of the subject than 99.9% of any of us?
Which still doesn't prove the point. That is not an idea. It's a specific implementation of how you unlock. See above for information.
in regard the particular patent i highlighted, we have
" ... The invention relates, in another embodiment, to a computer implemented method. The method includes receiving multiple touches on the surface of a transparent touch screen at the same time. The method also includes separately recognizing each of the multiple touches. The method further includes reporting touch data based on the recognized multiple touches.
... The invention relates, in another embodiment, to a touch screen method. The method includes driving a plurality of sensing points. The method also includes reading the outputs from all the sensing lines connected to the sensing points. The method further includes producing and analyzing an image of the touch screen plane at one moment in time in order to determine where objects are touching the touch screen. The method additionally includes comparing the current image to a past image in order to determine a change at the objects touching the touch screen."
i will recant all that i written in this thread if you can convince me that Motorola violated Apple's claim and ownership to this particular "computer implemented method" and "touch screen method" at the software implementation level.
in regard the particular patent i highlighted, we have
" ... The invention relates, in another embodiment, to a computer implemented method. The method includes receiving multiple touches on the surface of a transparent touch screen at the same time. The method also includes separately recognizing each of the multiple touches. The method further includes reporting touch data based on the recognized multiple touches.
... The invention relates, in another embodiment, to a touch screen method. The method includes driving a plurality of sensing points. The method also includes reading the outputs from all the sensing lines connected to the sensing points. The method further includes producing and analyzing an image of the touch screen plane at one moment in time in order to determine where objects are touching the touch screen. The method additionally includes comparing the current image to a past image in order to determine a change at the objects touching the touch screen."
i will recant all that i written in this thread if you can convince me that Motorola violated Apple's claim and ownership to this particular "computer implemented method" and "touch screen method" at the software implementation level.
So you admit that you were wrong in all your earlier nonsense about patenting ideas?
As for the rest, the court has already determined that Motorola infringed Apple's patents.
I'm amazed at some of the anti-Posner comments in this thread. To suggest he is biased, losing his grip on reality, doesn't understand because he only uses his phone for email or is too ignorant to sit on the bench just because you don't agree with his comments seems bizarre to me.
The posters here having a debate about the actual subject, rather than the person, are very informative, so why the attacks on someone who probably has more understanding of the subject than 99.9% of any of us?
No one is criticizing him simply because they don't agree with his comments. Rather, he is being criticized for favoring a position which is clearly contrary to the law he is supposed to interpret.
As for the rest, the court has already determined that Motorola infringed Apple's patents.
No one is criticizing him simply because they don't agree with his comments. Rather, he is being criticized for favoring a position which is clearly contrary to the law he is supposed to interpret.
I wasn't aware that Motorola was found to be infringing, tho I can't stay up-to-date on everything. Are you perhaps confusing Judge Posner's comments as an affirmation that the patents were examined by him and ruled valid by the court, and that Motorola was proved to be infringing on them? The case never got that far AFAIK, dismissed before ever going to trial. As for your comment that he ruled contrary to the law, it's certainly far from "clearly" so IMHO. He could possibly be over-ruled by an appeal on the grounds you mentioned (remind me what grounds those were?), but I've not seen any legal scholars or patent attorneys be as certain of it as you are. Perhaps you've seen sources I have not.
Hmm... I must have been mistaken. I guess I confused Id Software's licensing their various graphics engines with patented innovations. My error.
From just a quick search it looked like there were some copyright claims but I didn't see patents involved. They could be there as I didn't spend much time on it. I found several mentions of open-sourcing and additional pledges to keep any licensing to a minimum until open-licensing could be complete. It seems fairly accurate to portray him as an open-source advocate rather than just another guy taking advantage of patents to enrich himself.
I think he decided the case before it even came before him. The entire proceeding was a pretense, and a mockery of our legal system. This was clearly a case where the judge, based on his personal biases, and not the law, was looking a) for a specific outcome, and b) looking to use a high profile case to make a point.
I have nothing against skepticism and cynicism. Oftentimes it is warranted, and certainly it’s common (just look at recent Supreme Court commentary). But I think you could offer some concrete evidence of Judge Posner acting on his alleged bias in this case instead of conclusory condemnation, which frankly I find just a little too convenient and lazy. If you believe he presided with the end result in mind, please say where he did so. What rulings would have been different if this weren’t a software patent case? So far I seem to be the only one who has thrown something out there (the damages expert issue)—again which I don’t believe was the case—but I am trying to help the “skeptics” flesh out their concerns. On that issue, one way you could solidify your belief is if you identified a non-software-patent case somewhere in Judge Posner’s long history on the bench where proposed damages expert testimony was on similarly shaky ground, but he allowed it in instead of excluding it.
Obviously you don’t have to spend the effort to convince anyone of anything. I’m just pointing out my opinion that your expressed view seems more emotional than rational and trying to offer ways for you to demonstrate its rational underpinnings. But “he doesn’t like software patents, therefore he improperly threw out a software patent case” just doesn’t cut it. Let’s put it this way: if Apple were to argue bias on appeal, what would its best arguments be? And because I can assure you Apple won’t do this, a fairer but more complicated exercise is: if Apple were to argue legal and/or factual error on appeal, what would its best arguments be? Then, how would you tie those errors to your suspicion of bias? Even if you don’t have the desire to engage in this exercise, I think it’s worth considering on your own (not just you but any skeptic).
What truly needs reformation is the flawed patent system that allows such broad or basic ideas to be patented to a company. I agree every company has a right to protect what they have achieved, but really, the patent needs to protect ONLY what they achieve. Not what they have conceptualized in the toilet without a real hardware, or something very broad that encompasses even ideas beyond their creations.
What truly needs reformation is the flawed patent system that allows such broad or basic ideas to be patented to a company. I agree every company has a right to protect what they have achieved, but really, the patent needs to protect ONLY what they achieve. Not what they have conceptualized in the toilet without a real hardware, or something very broad that encompasses even ideas beyond their creations.
Just like that last 2,000 times it was brought up, Apple didn't patent a broad or basic idea (such as unlocking a phone). They patented a very specific implementation of one way to unlock a phone. Patents must be specific and cover an implementation rather than a broad idea already, so there's no need for a change.
Just like that last 2,000 times it was brought up, Apple didn't patent a broad or basic idea (such as unlocking a phone). They patented a very specific implementation of one way to unlock a phone. Patents must be specific and cover an implementation rather than a broad idea already, so there's no need for a change.
They tell us that swiping to unlock can be in any direction, and the mere act swiping is a direct violation of their patents. Then they go and argue that a tap is a zero-length swipe. So what are other supposed to do? blow on the phone?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
To rule for an injunction there are four things that need to be established according to law. Proving damages is one of those. Apple could not satisfactorily establish the monetary damage they were claiming (and may have had a tactical reason not to set a reasonable and specific number) thus not fulfilling the requirements for an injunction. The judgement didn't come from thin-air when he denied both Apple and Motorola's requests.
Being equally unfair to both sides, does not fairness make. And, it's unfair in the sense that neither side received justice because the judge did not listen to either side's arguments with an open mind, but merely to collect decision fodder to support his already made judgment. So, no, the judgement didn't come from thin air, it cam directly from Posner's pre-established biases.
It's more than curious that he specifically requested this case, then afterward made statements indicating his bias. It would seem that he had an agenda from the outset. I think the phrase judicial misconduct would be applicable, and his handling of the case grounds for impeachment.
Judge Posner has filed one additional document, this one commenting on an email he received from Apple counsel a few days after his dismissal of both Apple and Motorola claims with prejudice. In his reply he notes Apple trying a bit of legal trickery in an attempt to get a do-over on two of it's patent claims.
"The email is from Apple and concerns the judgment of dismissal with prejudice that I directed be entered on June 22, 2012. Much of the email is taken up with rulings that I made in the course of the litigation. On appeal from a final judgment a party can seek appellate review of any interlocutory ruling that has not been rendered moot by the final judgment. There is no occasion for specifying those rulings in the judgment itself.
Apple refers to a January 19, 2012, email in which it said it “will move”—not that it was moving—to sever its claims relating to alleged infringement by Motorola of two patents, the ‘721 and the ‘983, and to stay further action on them in this litigation, pending the Federal Circuit’s resolution of an appeal involving the same patents in a suit between Apple and HTC. Apple v. HTC, No. 2012-1025. The exact language of the January 19 email, so far as pertinent to severance and stay, is: “Apple will move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 to either sever its infringement claims as to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,481,721 and 6,275,983, and/or to stay resolution of those claims pending the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a pending appeal involving the 721 and 983 patents.” Notice that the email does not commit to sever. The email itself was thus not a motion for a severance or for a stay, and I took no action in response to it. That was five months ago and until yesterday, June 25, I had not heard a further peep from Apple about these two patents. I assumed it had abandoned its claims.
Apple indicates in its email that it wants me to sever those patent claims and stay action on them. Coyly, it still has not filed a motion to sever, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The informal suggestion in the January 19 email, never followed up, of a possible future motion to sever the two patents did not survive the entry of final judgment. Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 882–83. At the hearing on June 7, I indicated my tentative decision to dismiss the entire case, yet that did not trigger a motion to sever the ‘721 and ‘983 patent claims either. That decision became final on June 22. By its inaction, which given the quality and resources of Apple’s legal team I must assume is strategic, Apple has forfeited any right to a severance.
June 26, 2012
-<Posner signature>-
United States Circuit Judge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Judge Posner has filed one additional document, this one commenting on an email he received from Apple counsel a few days after his dismissal of both Apple and Motorola claims with prejudice. In his reply he notes Apple trying a bit of legal trickery in an attempt to get a do-over on two of it's patent claims.
Don't worry, they'll get a do-over, when Posner is overturned and removed from the case.
Clearly, you are correct. Let's say that a robber steals a woman's purse and keeps the money. The judge could deny both injunctions and throw the case out of court and it is fair to neither party (although the robber gets a break, of course). That doesn't mean that justice was served.
GoogleGuy is just happy any time Google and their licensees get away with stealing.
Yes, that's clearly an issue - and makes the entire thing appear biased. As before, there's no proof that the judge actually WAS biased, but the above action combined with some of his rulings (for example, not allowing Apple's marketing experts testify and then saying that Apple didn't prove damages) makes itl very, very likely that Apple will win their appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Clearly, you are correct. Let's say that a robber steals a woman's purse and keeps the money. The judge could deny both injunctions and throw the case out of court and it is fair to neither party (although the robber gets a break, of course). That doesn't mean that justice was served.
GoogleGuy is just happy any time Google and their licensees get away with stealing.
If a woman gets her purse stolen (which is a criminal offense no matter how much money was in it) I have no idea how an injunction would figure into it.
...and still the name-calling Jr? That's something I might expect from my teenage son and his friends, but certainly not someone who wants us to believe he has a PhD. In case you forgot your own good advice just check the signature. The forums will be more pleasant for everyone if we all could just follow the rules we all agreed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If a woman gets her purse stolen (which is a criminal offense no matter how much money was in it) I have no idea how an injunction would figure into it.
...and still the name-calling Jr? That's something I might expect from my teenage son and his friends, but certainly not someone who wants us to believe he has a PhD. In case you forgot your own advice just check the signature. Why do you think forum rules against personal attacks don't apply to you? The forums will be more pleasant for everyone if you could just follow the rules you and everyone else agreed to.
Pointing out your by now obvious association with Google isn't a personal attack, it's simply making sure everyone understands the context of your remarks. Context matters, as does honesty and integrity.
(Although, I can understand why you'd like us all to ignore your "shill" status.)
But, regardless of the analogy's strengths or weaknesses, the level of bias and predetermined judgment demonstrated in this case indicates that, despite the fact the outcome was favorable to your paymasters, justice was violated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Don't worry, they'll get a do-over, when Posner is overturned and removed from the case.
Judge Posner is still a judge, and lets agree that his understanding of the law is deeper than yours.
I'm amazed at some of the anti-Posner comments in this thread. To suggest he is biased, losing his grip on reality, doesn't understand because he only uses his phone for email or is too ignorant to sit on the bench just because you don't agree with his comments seems bizarre to me.
The posters here having a debate about the actual subject, rather than the person, are very informative, so why the attacks on someone who probably has more understanding of the subject than 99.9% of any of us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Which still doesn't prove the point. That is not an idea. It's a specific implementation of how you unlock. See above for information.
in regard the particular patent i highlighted, we have
" ... The invention relates, in another embodiment, to a computer implemented method. The method includes receiving multiple touches on the surface of a transparent touch screen at the same time. The method also includes separately recognizing each of the multiple touches. The method further includes reporting touch data based on the recognized multiple touches.
... The invention relates, in another embodiment, to a touch screen method. The method includes driving a plurality of sensing points. The method also includes reading the outputs from all the sensing lines connected to the sensing points. The method further includes producing and analyzing an image of the touch screen plane at one moment in time in order to determine where objects are touching the touch screen. The method additionally includes comparing the current image to a past image in order to determine a change at the objects touching the touch screen."
i will recant all that i written in this thread if you can convince me that Motorola violated Apple's claim and ownership to this particular "computer implemented method" and "touch screen method" at the software implementation level.
So you admit that you were wrong in all your earlier nonsense about patenting ideas?
As for the rest, the court has already determined that Motorola infringed Apple's patents.
No one is criticizing him simply because they don't agree with his comments. Rather, he is being criticized for favoring a position which is clearly contrary to the law he is supposed to interpret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As for the rest, the court has already determined that Motorola infringed Apple's patents.
No one is criticizing him simply because they don't agree with his comments. Rather, he is being criticized for favoring a position which is clearly contrary to the law he is supposed to interpret.
I wasn't aware that Motorola was found to be infringing, tho I can't stay up-to-date on everything. Are you perhaps confusing Judge Posner's comments as an affirmation that the patents were examined by him and ruled valid by the court, and that Motorola was proved to be infringing on them? The case never got that far AFAIK, dismissed before ever going to trial. As for your comment that he ruled contrary to the law, it's certainly far from "clearly" so IMHO. He could possibly be over-ruled by an appeal on the grounds you mentioned (remind me what grounds those were?), but I've not seen any legal scholars or patent attorneys be as certain of it as you are. Perhaps you've seen sources I have not.
Same could be said for Apple stealing notification bar. And ultimately on a screen should never be patentable... Because that's all it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by werdnanotroh
Same could be said for Apple stealing notification bar. And ultimately on a screen should never be patentable... Because that's all it is.
Oh geez, enough with the notification bar please. It's been beaten to death here and elsewhere already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwjvan
If that is true, can you please provide references?
As far as I know, he is outspoken against software patents. Here is an excerpt from something Carmack wrote in 2005:
"Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745
Hmm... I must have been mistaken. I guess I confused Id Software's licensing their various graphics engines with patented innovations. My error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Hmm... I must have been mistaken. I guess I confused Id Software's licensing their various graphics engines with patented innovations. My error.
From just a quick search it looked like there were some copyright claims but I didn't see patents involved. They could be there as I didn't spend much time on it. I found several mentions of open-sourcing and additional pledges to keep any licensing to a minimum until open-licensing could be complete. It seems fairly accurate to portray him as an open-source advocate rather than just another guy taking advantage of patents to enrich himself.
Absolutely.
I think he decided the case before it even came before him. The entire proceeding was a pretense, and a mockery of our legal system. This was clearly a case where the judge, based on his personal biases, and not the law, was looking a) for a specific outcome, and b) looking to use a high profile case to make a point.
I have nothing against skepticism and cynicism. Oftentimes it is warranted, and certainly it’s common (just look at recent Supreme Court commentary). But I think you could offer some concrete evidence of Judge Posner acting on his alleged bias in this case instead of conclusory condemnation, which frankly I find just a little too convenient and lazy. If you believe he presided with the end result in mind, please say where he did so. What rulings would have been different if this weren’t a software patent case? So far I seem to be the only one who has thrown something out there (the damages expert issue)—again which I don’t believe was the case—but I am trying to help the “skeptics” flesh out their concerns. On that issue, one way you could solidify your belief is if you identified a non-software-patent case somewhere in Judge Posner’s long history on the bench where proposed damages expert testimony was on similarly shaky ground, but he allowed it in instead of excluding it.Obviously you don’t have to spend the effort to convince anyone of anything. I’m just pointing out my opinion that your expressed view seems more emotional than rational and trying to offer ways for you to demonstrate its rational underpinnings. But “he doesn’t like software patents, therefore he improperly threw out a software patent case” just doesn’t cut it. Let’s put it this way: if Apple were to argue bias on appeal, what would its best arguments be? And because I can assure you Apple won’t do this, a fairer but more complicated exercise is: if Apple were to argue legal and/or factual error on appeal, what would its best arguments be? Then, how would you tie those errors to your suspicion of bias? Even if you don’t have the desire to engage in this exercise, I think it’s worth considering on your own (not just you but any skeptic).
What truly needs reformation is the flawed patent system that allows such broad or basic ideas to be patented to a company. I agree every company has a right to protect what they have achieved, but really, the patent needs to protect ONLY what they achieve. Not what they have conceptualized in the toilet without a real hardware, or something very broad that encompasses even ideas beyond their creations.
Just like that last 2,000 times it was brought up, Apple didn't patent a broad or basic idea (such as unlocking a phone). They patented a very specific implementation of one way to unlock a phone. Patents must be specific and cover an implementation rather than a broad idea already, so there's no need for a change.
As a Judge, your personal opinion means dogshit. Don't legislate from the bench.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Just like that last 2,000 times it was brought up, Apple didn't patent a broad or basic idea (such as unlocking a phone). They patented a very specific implementation of one way to unlock a phone. Patents must be specific and cover an implementation rather than a broad idea already, so there's no need for a change.
They tell us that swiping to unlock can be in any direction, and the mere act swiping is a direct violation of their patents. Then they go and argue that a tap is a zero-length swipe. So what are other supposed to do? blow on the phone?