How are they being denied the right to enforce their IP Mel? They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 if needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.
No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court. They aren't being asked to bundle those patents. They can't be. Each claim of a patent MUST be addressed separately. The court is stating that there are too many patents, and too many claims. That's absurd! It's up to the trial to decide whether all of those patents are being violated, and to a certain extent even, to decide whether some are even possibly not valid at all.
No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court. They aren't being asked to bundle those patents. They can't be. Each claim of a patent MUST be addressed separately. The court is stating that there are too many patents, and too many claims. That's absurd! It's up to the trial to decide whether all of those patents are being violated, and to a certain extent even, to decide whether some are even possibly not valid at all.
You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.
Yeah Apple does not want to settle since they are hoping the Motorola purchase will become irrelevant in the big scheme of things and will be gone as a cell phone company. Also if Samsung move away from Adriod to something else and no company is using Adriod then Apple wins. The only way that will happen to to keep dragging it out so no company is willing to take on the risk.
The more time goes on, the more I think this is true. Samsung already tries to differentiate from vanilla Android, and they've been dabbling in other mobile OSes for a long time (in an r&d sense, not a production one). If Samsung ditches Android, that will be the start of its death... I wonder if Apple is trying to push things this direction too. It would certainly be in their favour - iOS would be the most mature of all the mobile OSes left standing.
You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.
So, under your theory, each individual patent dispute should be an individual trial. There should be no counterclaims filed, those should have to be decided in a separate case. Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily chunking them up.
I agree that there's a lot of "delay tactics and gamesmanship" involved here, but I don't think you can put that on both parties. That's simply the legal strategy that Google/Motorola and Samsung have adopted, to sow confusion.
They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 or whatever as needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.
From FOSSPatents:
"...there are still 22 patents at issue: 12 Motorola patents and 10 Apple patents. Apple had sort of withdrawn two of its 12 asserted patents ("sort of" because it might re-raise them if an appeals court overturns an unfavorable claim construction)...
Claim construction was decided with respect to the first six patents each party asserted. It's still needed for the ones asserted last year. Without claim construction, it's hard for parties to figure out which patents are likely to be deemed infringed or invalid. But if the parties can't narrow their case, then the court has to construe over 100 terms from 180 claims from the 12 patents asserted in 2012. That's what Judge Scola is not quite prepared to do. He wants the parties now "to narrow the case to a manageable scope themselves". Otherwise, he "forewarns them that [the court] intends to stay the litigation while the [claim construction] issues are pending and issue a decision as expeditiously as the parties deserve" (meaning things will be delayed because the parties deserve it if they don't narrow the case)."
So neither Apple nor Motorola are being denied the right to enforce their IP. What the court has now told them is that if they cannot find a way to trim their current claims in this specific case it will cause a significant delay in the court hearing, with too much to consider. Translation: Both parties should plan to wait a looonngg time for the case to be heard. If' it's really important to Apple and Moto to reach a conclusion in a timely manner then find a way to trim it down.
They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 if needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.
Why is 5 more efficient than 30? After all, that's 6 trials instead of one. Doesn't seem very efficient.
Why 5? Why not 10? What if all 30 need to be in it for "clarity"?
I don't think you know what you're talking about, I think you're just defending what's best for your master.
You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.
I understand this very well. It doesn't change anything I've said. And it contradicts what you said just a post ago. Of course, if a judge forces companies to drop assertions from their docket, they can bring them up in another trial. That's besides the point. The costs escalate for everyone if that happens, including the courts. It's still much cheaper, and efficient for everyone to have all related claims in the same trial. Forcing claims to be withdrawn often has the effect of not being able, in a practical sense, to bring forth those claims at all. And the judges know that.
It's still a narrowing of the rights of the claimants. The courts are not supposed to be doing that, but they do often enough, as the claimants bend to the cause of expediency. Doesn't make it correct.
No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court.
The judge didn't say to eliminate patents. He said that the lawyers needed to fix their own mess that they had made.
Both Apple's and Google's lawyers kept piling on more and more details, until they both realized they had gone too far... and then those lawyers decided to ask the JUDGE to streamline the case for them.
Quote:
Using even more harsh terms, Scola's order declined the request of the two companies that the court intervene to cut down on the complexity of the case.
"Without a hint of irony," the order read, "the parties now ask the court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case."
In other words, the lawyers made the mess in the first place, so he wants them to take the first crack at cleaning up what they did. Then he'll step in and help.
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:20.796875px;">[SIZE=16px]"...there are still 22 patents at issue: 12 Motorola patents and 10 Apple patents. Apple had sort of withdrawn two of its 12 asserted patents ("sort of" because it might re-raise them if an appeals court overturns an unfavorable claim construction)...[/SIZE]</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:20.796875px;">[SIZE=16px]Claim construction was decided with respect to the first six patents each party asserted. It's still needed for the ones asserted last year. Without claim construction, it's hard for parties to figure out which patents are likely to be deemed infringed or invalid. But if the parties can't narrow their case, then the court has to construe over 100 terms from 180 claims from the 12 patents asserted in 2012. That's what Judge Scola is not quite prepared to do. He wants the parties now "to narrow the case to a manageable scope themselves". Otherwise, he "forewarns them that [the court] intends to stay the litigation while the [claim construction] issues are pending and issue a decision as expeditiously as the parties deserve" (meaning things will be delayed because the parties deserve it if they don't narrow the case)."[/SIZE]</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:20.796875px;">So neither Apple nor Motorola are being denied the right to enforce their IP. What the court has now told them is that if they cannot find a way to trim their current claims in this specific case it will cause a significant delay in the court hearing, with too much to consider. Translation: Both parties should plan to wait a looonngg time for the case to be heard. If' it's really important to Apple and Moto to reach a conclusion in a timely manner then find a way to trim it down.</p>
His opinion of what is taking place, is just his opinion, do course. He may be frustrated by the complexity, but that's what usually happens in situations such as this one.
Motorola/Google brought the case in the first place, hoping it would go through quickly. Of course, they had no real expectation of that happening, because they must have known that Apple would respond. Apple did, and then Google added more to the trial, so we stand with, I believe, 12 Google patents, and 10 Apple patents, all of which have multiple claims.
This is the nature of the beast. And the judge does admit that most, if not all, trials of this type are of a business nature, so why he even bothers to bring that up is bewildering.
The judge didn't say to eliminate patents. He said that the lawyers needed to fix their own mess that they had made.
Both Apple's and Google's lawyers kept piling on more and more details, until they both realized they had gone too far... and then those lawyers decided to ask the JUDGE to streamline the case for them.
In other words, the lawyers made the mess in the first place, so he wants them to take the first crack at cleaning up what they did. Then he'll step in and help.
Actually no. What you've said here simply isn't true. First if all, stop blaming the lawyers. I know people love to do that, but these are business decisions. Lawyers carry out those business decisions as best as they can. It's the CEO, and others, who decide what they want done. Try to remember that.
The people who make the final decisions on where these trials go for these two companies are Larry Paige, and Tim Cook, not the lawyers. There is no "mess" that the lawyers have made. And eliminating patents and claims is exactly what the judge has ordered them both to do.
Don't look at me. It was the judge who was blaming the lawyers. He wrote:
Quote:
"Although the parties agree that the case needs to be simplified, “primarily through voluntarily agreeing to drop patents and claims from the case,” the parties unsurprisingly have been unable to agree on how to accomplish this goal.
"Without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the Court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case.
"The Court declines this invitation."
And then he summed up with:
Quote:
"Perhaps because the parties correctly suspected that the Court would balk at their request to clean up their mess, the parties also suggest delaying the Markman process until they can narrow the case themselves. Since that puts the onus where it belongs, that is what the Court will do."
I've always had problems with Federal judges requiring companies to "simplify" their cases. I believe that it is actually unconstitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, I have had a couple of companies. Both had copyrights, trademarks, and most importantly, patents.
The rights given to the owners of those marks are given by the Constitution. The limitations to them are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the methods by which those rights may be modified by legislative action. Nowhere is it specified that the courts may arbitrarily limit those rights.
What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. They are removing the right of those holders to their constitutional right to defend those patents in court, and thereby obtain compensation for unlawfull use by others.
So far, companies have been willing to go along with these requirements, though they aren't pleased about it. I would imagine that if they wished, they could appeal these court requirements as limiting their rights under the Constitution. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would rule, if they took the case. It has, in the past, ruled that courts had no right to limit the defense of defendants, and that legislation was required instead.
I do realize that these cases can drag on forever (it would feel) but, that's the fault if having too many cases for too few courts. It's not a fault of the cases themselves. After all, the results of these cases will be felt decades from now, and would affect tens of billions in sales, and even profits, for a single litigant. It's no wonder these companies are so willing to immerse themselves in such complex, time consuming, and expensive litigation. A single loss, or win, in just one case could transfer billions of sales and profits from one company to the other.
I don't know any real way out of this, but requiring the limiting of the rights granted by the Constitution may not be a legal way out if it, even if it is being done today.
What you seem to be forgetting is that the concept of Patents is to promote the good of society as a whole, to promote the sharing of ideas and to contribute to the common good. It seems to me that especially in the US, exactly the opposite is ACTUALLY happening. Neither the US constitution nor the Patent law are intended to provide a means for an "inventor" to blackmail society and to block innovation by others. This is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to do, and is particularly absurd in the fast-moving Mobile phone business. You have seen the guestimate that modern smartphones are encumbered by something like 250,000 individual patents. If ALL patent holders behaved exactly as Apple and Motorola are doing, then there will be no progress.
As a european I actually find it quite funny. The US in their limitless greed are actually going to kill their own society. Believe me, the US is MUCH more vulnerable to this danger than many people want to believe. I don't know of any other country where IP disputes and Patent law are having such a devastating effect. Even with some of the more insane judgements in the German Patent courts, it doesn't even come into the same ballpark as is "daily business" in the US.
To take a neutral example ... look at the Microsoft "FairSearch" initiative agains Google in the EU. It is utterly beyond belief, that MS of all companies should be taking the position it does. ... particularly since it is virtually impossible to buy a PC or a laptop that doesn't come with Windows-8 pre-installed.
So I rather think you americans are reaping what you sow. Serves you right !
Don't look at me. It was the judge who was blaming the lawyers. He wrote:
Quote:
"Although the parties agree that the case needs to be simplified, “primarily through voluntarily agreeing to drop patents and claims from the case,” the parties unsurprisingly have been unable to agree on how to accomplish this goal.
"Without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the Court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case.
"The Court declines this invitation."
And then he summed up with:
Quote:
"Perhaps because the parties correctly suspected that the Court would balk at their request to clean up their mess, the parties also suggest delaying the Markman process until they can narrow the case themselves. Since that puts the onus where it belongs, that is what the Court will do."
Sorry, I fail to see where he specifically blamed the lawyers. All I see are references to "the parties", which would be Apple and Google/Motorola.
This would not be such a mess if the judges actually made decisions that would settle a case and actually did there job. Look at Lucy Koe For example she has made an absolute mess of the jury ruling in the 9 Circuit. Yes the jury made mistakes in the calculations of some of the fines but She has overruled the jury with regards to willful infringement because she said that it is apples responsibility to show that infringement harmed apple. LOL. The evidence in the case was damning. Like the 132 page internal report from samsung how to outright copy every single iOS interface design to make there galaxy look more like iOS and the iPhone. Crap like this causes more court battles down the road because you know they will appeal. And when they did samsung wants the rights to retry all of the devices that were found to have the fines miscalculated completely as a new trial for infringement. She has shot herself in the foot so many times it is ridiculous. Barbra Crab is just as bad. Transferring whole cases out of her court when she doesnt want to hear them and While I like what Richard Posner said about FRAND patents in his ruling, he basically just washed his hands of the whole Motorola/Apple case.
Meanwhile these cases drag on because no judge wants to make the kind of decisions that are necessary to end this crap. They just drag it out for so long, that by the time Justice is served if ever, nobody that started the cases will remember or be around that cares, and the infringers like samsung will have gotten away with infringement because there is no ruling that will stop them from doing so, because of judges hand wringing.
The Judges need to look at themselves before blaming the companies for how many patents are in there courts. Judges rule in the court and they have the right to winnow the cases to a manageable sized if they so desire, it is there job. And if it is there job then they need to just do it, and quit complaining.
And where in all of that did he specifically blame the lawyers? The "parties" mentioned are the clients. It's up to the clients to decide which articles to drop, not the lawyers, though the lawyers will advise as to which would be better defended.
What you seem to be forgetting is that the concept of Patents is to promote the good of society as a whole, to promote the sharing of ideas and to contribute to the common good. It seems to me that especially in the US, exactly the opposite is ACTUALLY happening. Neither the US constitution nor the Patent law are intended to provide a means for an "inventor" to blackmail society and to block innovation by others. This is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to do, and is particularly absurd in the fast-moving Mobile phone business. You have seen the guestimate that modern smartphones are encumbered by something like 250,000 individual patents. If ALL patent holders behaved exactly as Apple and Motorola are doing, then there will be no progress.
As a european I actually find it quite funny. The US in their limitless greed are actually going to kill their own society. Believe me, the US is MUCH more vulnerable to this danger than many people want to believe. I don't know of any other country where IP disputes and Patent law are having such a devastating effect. Even with some of the more insane judgements in the German Patent courts, it doesn't even come into the same ballpark as is "daily business" in the US.
To take a neutral example ... look at the Microsoft "FairSearch" initiative agains Google in the EU. It is utterly beyond belief, that MS of all companies should be taking the position it does. ... particularly since it is virtually impossible to buy a PC or a laptop that doesn't come with Windows-8 pre-installed.
So I rather think you americans are reaping what you sow. Serves you right !
As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there.
What you don't understand is that by supporting the rights of patent owners, it's society that does benefit. All of these big companies produce many inventions for which they receive patents. They use most of those patents in new, and innovative products which we buy. That's a direct benefit to society. When companies such as Google, Samsung, and others steal the IP those companies invent, they are contributing nothing of much value themselves, while destroying much of the value of the inventions for the owners.
I could understand the position if the company was a patent troll, as defined as someone who buys up patents with no intention to use them, but with the intention of waiting until some company that isn't aware of the patent does, and then when that company builds up a successful business, pounces and attempts to get unreasonable compensation.
But that isn't Apple. I surely hope you don't think it is. Apple is one of the most innovative companies around. Most of the modern computer, telecommunications and content industries as currently evolved, have evolved because of some Apple invention, product, or service.
And all of that is exceeding expensive to do. So when they get ripped off by some company like Google, who thinks they have a right to other's IP, they fight back, as they should. I don't think you really understand what a patent is all about. If companies didn't defend theirs, they there would be no point to issuing them. You must realize that. Patents are there to encourage inventors to invent, by according them sole control over how that patent is used, and by whom. That's true here, and in Europe. It always has been. The benefit to society come from those inventors who take advantage of the security the patent offers them in making exclusive use of it if they wish, or licensing it to others, if they wish.
But the laws everywhere are quite clear. The owner of the patent has sole discretion as to how they will handle the use of it. No one else has the right to take that exclusivity away. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand patents anywhere. Don't tell us how our system is broken and how wonderful it is there. I could tell you a lot of horror stories. And if the EU was ever capable of getting their act together, Europe could finally act like the one entity it's supposed to be on so many fronts. But the petty parochialism each country has towards every other prevents anything from working properly. Go fix that.
Once a company decides to sue, i<span style="line-height:1.231;">t's the law firm's job to figure out the details and how far to take them.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Do you think that the CEOs of each company came up with all the patent claim constructs to settle? No, that's not their expertise.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">The constructs are the time consuming thing that the judge is upset about, not the number of patents per se. </span>
Most of the lawyers on these cases are very good lawyers, but are not experts on any of the patents in question. The engineers in the company are. And the decision to defend or not is a business decision, not a legal one. There will be a discussion between the relevant top management, engineers and lawyers befor a case is made. That's the way it works. My own company had to defend two patents in court on two seperate occasions, ad that's how we did it as well. I, and my partners had to make the decision to go ahead, not the lawyers. After all was explained, the advised on how much of a case the believed we had, but it was out decision to go ahead. We won both cases.
Comments
No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court. They aren't being asked to bundle those patents. They can't be. Each claim of a patent MUST be addressed separately. The court is stating that there are too many patents, and too many claims. That's absurd! It's up to the trial to decide whether all of those patents are being violated, and to a certain extent even, to decide whether some are even possibly not valid at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court. They aren't being asked to bundle those patents. They can't be. Each claim of a patent MUST be addressed separately. The court is stating that there are too many patents, and too many claims. That's absurd! It's up to the trial to decide whether all of those patents are being violated, and to a certain extent even, to decide whether some are even possibly not valid at all.
You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Yeah Apple does not want to settle since they are hoping the Motorola purchase will become irrelevant in the big scheme of things and will be gone as a cell phone company. Also if Samsung move away from Adriod to something else and no company is using Adriod then Apple wins. The only way that will happen to to keep dragging it out so no company is willing to take on the risk.
The more time goes on, the more I think this is true. Samsung already tries to differentiate from vanilla Android, and they've been dabbling in other mobile OSes for a long time (in an r&d sense, not a production one). If Samsung ditches Android, that will be the start of its death... I wonder if Apple is trying to push things this direction too. It would certainly be in their favour - iOS would be the most mature of all the mobile OSes left standing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You simply misunderstand Mel. Both sides have been told to eliminate claims from this specific case. They can still file a separate lawsuit for any of those patents at another time if they truly feel the need to. The way both parties have conducted themselves in this case amounts to delay tactics and gamesmanship and in the opinion of the judge demonstrates that neither side is interested in settling the dispute yet. I'm frankly surprised you don't recognize that.
So, under your theory, each individual patent dispute should be an individual trial. There should be no counterclaims filed, those should have to be decided in a separate case. Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily chunking them up.
I agree that there's a lot of "delay tactics and gamesmanship" involved here, but I don't think you can put that on both parties. That's simply the legal strategy that Google/Motorola and Samsung have adopted, to sow confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 or whatever as needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.
From FOSSPatents:
"...there are still 22 patents at issue: 12 Motorola patents and 10 Apple patents. Apple had sort of withdrawn two of its 12 asserted patents ("sort of" because it might re-raise them if an appeals court overturns an unfavorable claim construction)...
Claim construction was decided with respect to the first six patents each party asserted. It's still needed for the ones asserted last year. Without claim construction, it's hard for parties to figure out which patents are likely to be deemed infringed or invalid. But if the parties can't narrow their case, then the court has to construe over 100 terms from 180 claims from the 12 patents asserted in 2012. That's what Judge Scola is not quite prepared to do. He wants the parties now "to narrow the case to a manageable scope themselves". Otherwise, he "forewarns them that [the court] intends to stay the litigation while the [claim construction] issues are pending and issue a decision as expeditiously as the parties deserve" (meaning things will be delayed because the parties deserve it if they don't narrow the case)."
So neither Apple nor Motorola are being denied the right to enforce their IP. What the court has now told them is that if they cannot find a way to trim their current claims in this specific case it will cause a significant delay in the court hearing, with too much to consider. Translation: Both parties should plan to wait a looonngg time for the case to be heard. If' it's really important to Apple and Moto to reach a conclusion in a timely manner then find a way to trim it down.
It's Apple and Motorola's move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They're only being told not to take 30 patents and throw them all in a single lawsuit. Break'm into groups of 5 if needed for clarity and efficiency. They can still assert them, and no rights are being taken away. Apparently it's you who doesn't understand the issue the court raised.
Why is 5 more efficient than 30? After all, that's 6 trials instead of one. Doesn't seem very efficient.
Why 5? Why not 10? What if all 30 need to be in it for "clarity"?
I don't think you know what you're talking about, I think you're just defending what's best for your master.
I understand this very well. It doesn't change anything I've said. And it contradicts what you said just a post ago. Of course, if a judge forces companies to drop assertions from their docket, they can bring them up in another trial. That's besides the point. The costs escalate for everyone if that happens, including the courts. It's still much cheaper, and efficient for everyone to have all related claims in the same trial. Forcing claims to be withdrawn often has the effect of not being able, in a practical sense, to bring forth those claims at all. And the judges know that.
It's still a narrowing of the rights of the claimants. The courts are not supposed to be doing that, but they do often enough, as the claimants bend to the cause of expediency. Doesn't make it correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
No they aren't. They are being told to eliminate patents. To throw them out of the dispute so that it will simplify the case, and take less time in court.
The judge didn't say to eliminate patents. He said that the lawyers needed to fix their own mess that they had made.
Both Apple's and Google's lawyers kept piling on more and more details, until they both realized they had gone too far... and then those lawyers decided to ask the JUDGE to streamline the case for them.
Quote:
Using even more harsh terms, Scola's order declined the request of the two companies that the court intervene to cut down on the complexity of the case.
"Without a hint of irony," the order read, "the parties now ask the court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case."
In other words, the lawyers made the mess in the first place, so he wants them to take the first crack at cleaning up what they did. Then he'll step in and help.
Here is the actual order of the court, in its entirety:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135321905/13-04-09-Order-Denying-Case-Management-Conference-and-Extending-Markman-Deadlines
His opinion of what is taking place, is just his opinion, do course. He may be frustrated by the complexity, but that's what usually happens in situations such as this one.
Motorola/Google brought the case in the first place, hoping it would go through quickly. Of course, they had no real expectation of that happening, because they must have known that Apple would respond. Apple did, and then Google added more to the trial, so we stand with, I believe, 12 Google patents, and 10 Apple patents, all of which have multiple claims.
This is the nature of the beast. And the judge does admit that most, if not all, trials of this type are of a business nature, so why he even bothers to bring that up is bewildering.
Actually no. What you've said here simply isn't true. First if all, stop blaming the lawyers. I know people love to do that, but these are business decisions. Lawyers carry out those business decisions as best as they can. It's the CEO, and others, who decide what they want done. Try to remember that.
The people who make the final decisions on where these trials go for these two companies are Larry Paige, and Tim Cook, not the lawyers. There is no "mess" that the lawyers have made. And eliminating patents and claims is exactly what the judge has ordered them both to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
First if all, stop blaming the lawyers.
Don't look at me. It was the judge who was blaming the lawyers. He wrote:
Quote:
"Although the parties agree that the case needs to be simplified, “primarily through voluntarily agreeing to drop patents and claims from the case,” the parties unsurprisingly have been unable to agree on how to accomplish this goal.
"Without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the Court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case.
"The Court declines this invitation."
And then he summed up with:
Quote:
"Perhaps because the parties correctly suspected that the Court would balk at their request to clean up their mess, the parties also suggest delaying the Markman process until they can narrow the case themselves. Since that puts the onus where it belongs, that is what the Court will do."
My exact thought. Methinks the judge feels out of his depth and this is his retort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I've always had problems with Federal judges requiring companies to "simplify" their cases. I believe that it is actually unconstitutional. While I'm not a lawyer, I have had a couple of companies. Both had copyrights, trademarks, and most importantly, patents.
The rights given to the owners of those marks are given by the Constitution. The limitations to them are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the methods by which those rights may be modified by legislative action. Nowhere is it specified that the courts may arbitrarily limit those rights.
What we see in these admittedly complex cases, is that the courts are doing just that. By requiring the parties to simplify their cases, the courts are taking away rights the patent holders have to what may be perfectly valid patents. They are removing the right of those holders to their constitutional right to defend those patents in court, and thereby obtain compensation for unlawfull use by others.
So far, companies have been willing to go along with these requirements, though they aren't pleased about it. I would imagine that if they wished, they could appeal these court requirements as limiting their rights under the Constitution. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would rule, if they took the case. It has, in the past, ruled that courts had no right to limit the defense of defendants, and that legislation was required instead.
I do realize that these cases can drag on forever (it would feel) but, that's the fault if having too many cases for too few courts. It's not a fault of the cases themselves. After all, the results of these cases will be felt decades from now, and would affect tens of billions in sales, and even profits, for a single litigant. It's no wonder these companies are so willing to immerse themselves in such complex, time consuming, and expensive litigation. A single loss, or win, in just one case could transfer billions of sales and profits from one company to the other.
I don't know any real way out of this, but requiring the limiting of the rights granted by the Constitution may not be a legal way out if it, even if it is being done today.
What you seem to be forgetting is that the concept of Patents is to promote the good of society as a whole, to promote the sharing of ideas and to contribute to the common good. It seems to me that especially in the US, exactly the opposite is ACTUALLY happening. Neither the US constitution nor the Patent law are intended to provide a means for an "inventor" to blackmail society and to block innovation by others. This is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to do, and is particularly absurd in the fast-moving Mobile phone business. You have seen the guestimate that modern smartphones are encumbered by something like 250,000 individual patents. If ALL patent holders behaved exactly as Apple and Motorola are doing, then there will be no progress.
As a european I actually find it quite funny. The US in their limitless greed are actually going to kill their own society. Believe me, the US is MUCH more vulnerable to this danger than many people want to believe. I don't know of any other country where IP disputes and Patent law are having such a devastating effect. Even with some of the more insane judgements in the German Patent courts, it doesn't even come into the same ballpark as is "daily business" in the US.
To take a neutral example ... look at the Microsoft "FairSearch" initiative agains Google in the EU. It is utterly beyond belief, that MS of all companies should be taking the position it does. ... particularly since it is virtually impossible to buy a PC or a laptop that doesn't come with Windows-8 pre-installed.
So I rather think you americans are reaping what you sow. Serves you right !
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
First if all, stop blaming the lawyers.
Don't look at me. It was the judge who was blaming the lawyers. He wrote:
Quote:
"Although the parties agree that the case needs to be simplified, “primarily through voluntarily agreeing to drop patents and claims from the case,” the parties unsurprisingly have been unable to agree on how to accomplish this goal.
"Without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the Court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case.
"The Court declines this invitation."
And then he summed up with:
Quote:
"Perhaps because the parties correctly suspected that the Court would balk at their request to clean up their mess, the parties also suggest delaying the Markman process until they can narrow the case themselves. Since that puts the onus where it belongs, that is what the Court will do."
Sorry, I fail to see where he specifically blamed the lawyers. All I see are references to "the parties", which would be Apple and Google/Motorola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Sorry, I fail to see where he specifically blamed the lawyers. All I see are references to "the parties", which would be Apple and Google/Motorola.
Once a company decides to sue, it's the law firm's job to figure out the details and how far to take them.
Do you think that the CEOs of each company came up with all the patent claim constructs to settle? No, that's not their expertise.
The constructs are the time consuming thing that the judge is upset about, not the number of patents per se.
This would not be such a mess if the judges actually made decisions that would settle a case and actually did there job. Look at Lucy Koe For example she has made an absolute mess of the jury ruling in the 9 Circuit. Yes the jury made mistakes in the calculations of some of the fines but She has overruled the jury with regards to willful infringement because she said that it is apples responsibility to show that infringement harmed apple. LOL. The evidence in the case was damning. Like the 132 page internal report from samsung how to outright copy every single iOS interface design to make there galaxy look more like iOS and the iPhone. Crap like this causes more court battles down the road because you know they will appeal. And when they did samsung wants the rights to retry all of the devices that were found to have the fines miscalculated completely as a new trial for infringement. She has shot herself in the foot so many times it is ridiculous. Barbra Crab is just as bad. Transferring whole cases out of her court when she doesnt want to hear them and While I like what Richard Posner said about FRAND patents in his ruling, he basically just washed his hands of the whole Motorola/Apple case.
Meanwhile these cases drag on because no judge wants to make the kind of decisions that are necessary to end this crap. They just drag it out for so long, that by the time Justice is served if ever, nobody that started the cases will remember or be around that cares, and the infringers like samsung will have gotten away with infringement because there is no ruling that will stop them from doing so, because of judges hand wringing.
The Judges need to look at themselves before blaming the companies for how many patents are in there courts. Judges rule in the court and they have the right to winnow the cases to a manageable sized if they so desire, it is there job. And if it is there job then they need to just do it, and quit complaining.
And where in all of that did he specifically blame the lawyers? The "parties" mentioned are the clients. It's up to the clients to decide which articles to drop, not the lawyers, though the lawyers will advise as to which would be better defended.
As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there.
What you don't understand is that by supporting the rights of patent owners, it's society that does benefit. All of these big companies produce many inventions for which they receive patents. They use most of those patents in new, and innovative products which we buy. That's a direct benefit to society. When companies such as Google, Samsung, and others steal the IP those companies invent, they are contributing nothing of much value themselves, while destroying much of the value of the inventions for the owners.
I could understand the position if the company was a patent troll, as defined as someone who buys up patents with no intention to use them, but with the intention of waiting until some company that isn't aware of the patent does, and then when that company builds up a successful business, pounces and attempts to get unreasonable compensation.
But that isn't Apple. I surely hope you don't think it is. Apple is one of the most innovative companies around. Most of the modern computer, telecommunications and content industries as currently evolved, have evolved because of some Apple invention, product, or service.
And all of that is exceeding expensive to do. So when they get ripped off by some company like Google, who thinks they have a right to other's IP, they fight back, as they should. I don't think you really understand what a patent is all about. If companies didn't defend theirs, they there would be no point to issuing them. You must realize that. Patents are there to encourage inventors to invent, by according them sole control over how that patent is used, and by whom. That's true here, and in Europe. It always has been. The benefit to society come from those inventors who take advantage of the security the patent offers them in making exclusive use of it if they wish, or licensing it to others, if they wish.
But the laws everywhere are quite clear. The owner of the patent has sole discretion as to how they will handle the use of it. No one else has the right to take that exclusivity away. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand patents anywhere. Don't tell us how our system is broken and how wonderful it is there. I could tell you a lot of horror stories. And if the EU was ever capable of getting their act together, Europe could finally act like the one entity it's supposed to be on so many fronts. But the petty parochialism each country has towards every other prevents anything from working properly. Go fix that.
Most of the lawyers on these cases are very good lawyers, but are not experts on any of the patents in question. The engineers in the company are. And the decision to defend or not is a business decision, not a legal one. There will be a discussion between the relevant top management, engineers and lawyers befor a case is made. That's the way it works. My own company had to defend two patents in court on two seperate occasions, ad that's how we did it as well. I, and my partners had to make the decision to go ahead, not the lawyers. After all was explained, the advised on how much of a case the believed we had, but it was out decision to go ahead. We won both cases.