"Would it be an idea if the legal system aided he Patent Office? Instead bullying companies trying to protect their IP?"
Exactly what I was thinking when I first read this. Why is the judge whining about having to do his job and instead directly the whining toward the USPTO which created the mess in the first place. If you don't like all the jargon then have the rules amended to do something about it. Don't go after the two parties that are following the rules they are given.
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. (snip)
I'm sure you're right about your particular situation. And I agree about engineers being consulted along the way. Been there.
However... in this particular case... the judge's ruling was specifically about the enormous time burden the 100 claims construction hearings (the Markman process) could impose. If it only took a half a day per word, it would take ten weeks. It could take less, or it could take much longer.
This has nothing to do with business decisions (*). It is about patent wording, something patent lawyers are paid to worry and argue about (plus they now have quite a lot of experience arguing many of these patents). Then the decision over each word has to be made by the judge.
So what to do? Should a court be held up for months over the word meaning of extra claims that wouldn't succeed anyway? This is why multiple judges have now made the same request: don't burden the court with dozens of claim wording hearings that won't matter. Instead, figure out what your most important (and likely to succeed) claims are and concentrate on those. It only takes one claim per patent to win.
(*) Except that of course the judge would love them to settle out of court.
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.
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/
Mel, perhaps Nokia or Moto feels they're being ripped off by companies like Apple, who sometimes neglect paying for others IP. Surely you don't think it's just a one-way street so your comments could apply to Apple too I presume. It's not as tho they've never been found to use a patent or two without a license to it. It happened again just a week or so ago. tho it doesn't necessarily follow that it's intentional "stealing" as it's really tough to avoid with so many patents floating around. Now that I've said that, has Google ever been found to infringe on someone else patents? Perhaps they have. I haven't checked but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
EDIT: I can find a single Linux patent Google was found to infringe a couple years ago. Cost them $5M. Other than that they seem generally in the clear so they're certainly not serial violators of other's patents as far as I can see. I can quickly find at least 8 different patents belonging to others that courts found Apple to be infringing in just the last year or so.
...and then there's Samsung who's really been on an infringement roll lately.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
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.
"As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there."
If that's the best you can do its not worth reading the rest.
But you top yourself
"Most of the modern computer, telecommunications and content industries as currently evolved, have evolved because of some Apple invention, product, or service."
As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there... 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.
Then there are Europeans with a different view, probably because they're Europeans, and look differently at why things are the way they are. I'm not saying you don't understand, but you have to admit that 'petty parochialism' likely raises some European eyebrows.
I can find a single Linux patent Google was found to infringe a couple years ago. Cost them $5M. Other than that they seem generally in the clear so they're certainly not serial violators of other's patents as far as I can see. I can quickly find at least 8 different patents belonging to others that courts found Apple to be infringing in just the last year or so.
...and then there's Samsung who's really been on an infringement roll lately.
1. Would it be possible for companies to infringe without knowing? Could Apple have bought 3G radio chips for their phones from a company expecting procured products to be infringe-free?
2. Copyright violation:
Google Found Guilty In Belgium For Newspapers' Copyright Infringement link
3. Patent infringement:
A San Francisco jury ruled that Google violated copyright law in an action brought by Oracle. The jury did not decide on the secondary issue of whether using an API is fair use. link
4. Mondovino copyright law breach, Paris court fines Google for copyright breaches:
Then there are Europeans with a different view, probably because they're Europeans, and look differently at why things are the way they are. I'm not saying you don't understand, but you have to admit that 'petty parochialism' likely raises some European eyebrows.
1. Would it be possible for companies to infringe without knowing? Could Apple have bought 3G radio chips for their phones from a company expecting procured products to be infringe-free?
2. Copyright violation:
Google Found Guilty In Belgium For Newspapers' Copyright Infringement link
3. Patent infringement:
A San Francisco jury ruled that Google violated copyright law in an action brought by Oracle. The jury did not decide on the secondary issue of whether using an API is fair use. link
4. Mondovino copyright law breach, Paris court fines Google for copyright breaches:
Thanks for the couple of copyright violation mentions. I remembered one from the Oracle trial and I see there was another in France very recently according to your link. Note your #3 mention wasn't a patent. I still don't see any more than one single patent infringement in at least the last several years. For a company the size of Google it looks admirable. Compare that to some of the other techs, even the "clean hands" of Apple.
The facts don't support Mel's portrayal pf Google as not respecting others patents, much less lumping them in with Samsung as he does.
Thanks for the couple of copyright violation mentions. I remembered one from the Oracle trial and I see there was another in France very recently according to your link. Note your #3 mention wasn't a patent. I still don't seee any more than one single patent infringement in at least the last several years.
Google hardly looks like the thief that some here try to portray them as. Compare that to some of the other techs, even the "clean hands" of Apple.
I know, not much weight (or however I should describe these issues). I really have no idea on how much any company really abuses their power, knowingly infringing, or disregarding laws and IP. Perhaps some companies don't even know this themselves, save for the cases that we do read upon and seem very clear on the issue.
If I weren't so interested in tech in general, I'd have more time to read up on all these things, alas, I don't.
I'm sure you're right about your particular situation. And <span style="line-height:1.231;">I agree about engineers being consulted along the way. Been there.</span>
However... in this particular case... the judge's ruling was specifically about the enormous time burden the 100 claims construction hearings (the Markman process) could impose. If it only took a half a day per word, it would take ten weeks. It could take less, or it could take much longer.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">This has nothing to do with business decisions (*). It is about patent wording, something patent lawyers are paid to worry and argue about (plus they now have quite a lot of experience arguing many of these patents). Then the decision over each word has to be made by the judge.</span>
So what to do? Should a court be held up for months over the word meaning of extra claims that wouldn't succeed anyway? This is why multiple judges have now made the same request: don't burden the court with dozens of claim wording hearings that won't matter. Instead, figure out what your most important (and likely to succeed) claims are and concentrate on those. It only takes one claim per patent to win.
(*) Except that of course the judge would love them to settle out of court.
Now don't go and blame the wording in the patents themselves. That's really quite a stretch. A patent is both an engineering and a legal document. Wording must follow certain rules. I've written documentation for the equipment I've designed for my company. It's not like writing to a friend. Patents must be written in ways that cover. Eventualities. One wrong word can screw it all up. Of course it's fairly obtuse. But that's not a problem.
The problem is when a company violates that patent. So blame the violator. And remember that in these patent wars, Apple is way ahead. When it comes to Samsung, for example, it's Apple 26 and Samsung 3 so far. Almost every claim Motorola/Google has made around the world has either been minor, denied, or overturned. Both Motorola, and now, by extension, Google, and Samsung are being investigated as violators of patent licensing rules both here and in the EU.
So when looking at all this, we need to understand what the problem really is. It's Google and Samsung.
The judge here is over his head. I understand that judges are overworked, and are frustrated at the complexity of these cases. But they are what they are. To expect companies to happily give up claims that could define the company over the next decade or two isn't entirely fair for the purpose of just saving some of the court's time.
Mel, perhaps Nokia or Moto feels they're being ripped off by companies like Apple, who sometimes neglect paying for others IP. Surely you don't think it's just a one-way street so your comments could apply to Apple too I presume. It's not as tho they've never been found to use a patent or two without a license to it. It happened again just a week or so ago. tho it doesn't necessarily follow that it's intentional "stealing" as it's really tough to avoid with so many patents floating around. Now that I've said that, has Google ever been found to infringe on someone else patents? Perhaps they have. I haven't checked but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
EDIT: I can find a single Linux patent Google was found to infringe a couple years ago. Cost them $5M. Other than that they seem generally in the clear so they're certainly not serial violators of other's patents as far as I can see. I can quickly find at least 8 different patents belonging to others that courts found Apple to be infringing in just the last year or so.
...and then there's Samsung who's really been on an infringement roll lately.
First of all, there's no evidence that Motorola has any case at all in any jurisdiction. All of their claims have been thrown out in their entirety, or are now in the process of being thrown out. And, as you know very well, they are under investigations for violating their agreements as to FRAND licensing, which is the only place they have any argument at all, but apparently, those rulings in their favor in the EU are in the process of being thrown out as well.
As far as Nokia goes, Apple was negotiating with them as well. Nokia wanted more than Apple would pay. Eventually, Apple agreed to pay about two thirds of what Nokia was demanding. So they both got some of what they wanted.
In addition, it doesn't matter what a company feels is its due, what matters is whether they can prove they are due it. So far, Apple's opposition hasn't done very well there, and Apple has done much better. That should tell you about the validity of the claims.
As far as the thief, Samsung goes, as I mentioned above, it's Apple 26 and Samsung 3 in the courts worldwide.
"As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there."
If that's the best you can do its not worth reading the rest.
But you top yourself
"Most of the modern computer, telecommunications and content industries as currently evolved, have evolved because of some Apple invention, product, or service."
Which is going from the absurd to the ridiculous.
Respect /s
Since you first claimed that is was out system that was screwed, and that we therefor spdeserve what's happening, you can't throw ant stones at me for poi ting out the truth of what's happening where you live. Perhaps you are embarrassed at that, and forgot all the problems you have there. I can forgive that. If I lived there, I would want to forget all the problems too.
Then there are Europeans with a different view, probably because they're Europeans, and look differently at why things are the way they are. I'm not saying you don't understand, but you have to admit that 'petty parochialism' likely raises some European eyebrows.
1. Would it be possible for companies to infringe without knowing? Could Apple have bought 3G radio chips for their phones from a company expecting procured products to be infringe-free?
2. Copyright violation:
Google Found Guilty In Belgium For Newspapers' Copyright Infringement link
3. Patent infringement:
A San Francisco jury ruled that Google violated copyright law in an action brought by Oracle. The jury did not decide on the secondary issue of whether using an API is fair use. link
4. Mondovino copyright law breach, Paris court fines Google for copyright breaches:
Well, it certainly is petty parochialism. When the EU formulates systemwide laws, and the various countries constantly violate those laws, then that term certainly applies.
Perhaps you remember what happened to Apple there a few years ago regarding the various national iTunes stores? Apple was accused of charging different prices in each country, which supposedly goes against the fair competition laws the EU had put in place. They went to investigate Apple, and perhaps fine them. But it turned out that Apple had no choice, because each country, in violation of the EU laws, was forcing Apple to deal with their own royalty collection agencies, and required Apple to set different prices in each country.
So what happened? The EU commissioner apologized to Apple, and acknowledged that they were being forced to do this by the individual countries, despite it being a violation of the EU laws regarding those types of stores and products. What happened after that? Did the EU force the countries to retract their laws and follow the EU law and allow Apple to have one store, with one price across the entire EU? No, they whined about the countries not following the laws, and dropped the entire matter.
This is typically how the EU operates.
The EU law about budget deficits for each country are that they may not exceed 3%. If they do, the country is fined a good deal of money. That worked for small countries, who would get fined when that happened. But when both France and Germany went over the 3%, they warned the finance commission not to dare to fine them, and they didn't.
Again, a typical way problems are handled over there.
As far as the specifics you mentioned, yes, that's what happened.
But it's actually worse. Both Motorola and Samsung are unethical. Both approached Broadcom and Qualcomm about that chip licensing. Now it must be remembered that there are two principles at work here. The first is that the chip manufacturers license the microcode from the companies who have the patents. The second it the right of first sale.
The first means that both Broadcom and Qualcomm already paid the licensing fees for that tech. The second it that licensing fees die at that point, and purchAsers of those chips done need to pay the fees. In addition, both Motorola and Samsung had signed contracts specifically stating that purchAsers of the chips, and downstream users of said equipment had no license fees to pay because they were already paid by the manufacturers of the chips.
But both Motorola and Samsung wanted Broadcom and Qualcomm to allow them to rewrite the contracts to specifically eliminate Apple from ability of buyi g the chips and not paying licensing. Both Broadcom and Qualcomm released public statements saying that they refused and that it was improper to expect that they would agree. The possibility of action in court over this by Motorola and Samsung was ended.
Both Motorola and Samsung have been acting very unethically in all of this, everywhere around the world. From asking up to 1,000 times the worth of a FRAND patent, to suing over matters that they must have known were improper. They have had no real serious IP to sue Apple over. Motorola even stated that the reason they sued Apple in this case was because they were sure that Apple would sue them, so they wanted to do it first. That makes no sense. It took Apple a bit of time to respond. If they were planning on suing, it would have happened faster, because they would have been in the process of maki ghtir case ready.
It's felt that at that time, Google and Motorola were in negotiations, and so Motorola sued Apple as a front for Google. This supposedly, would make Google's case for buying the at the outrageous price they paid more meaningful.
As Motorola was failing before the purchase, and is failing more rapidly now, along with the worthless cases they fired at Apple, I'm pretty sure that at some point, Google will need to write off most of the $12.5 billion purchase.
Thanks for the couple of copyright violation mentions. I remembered one from the Oracle trial and I see there was another in France very recently according to your link. Note your #3 mention wasn't a patent. I still don't see any more than one single patent infringement in at least the last several years. For a company the size of Google it looks admirable.<span style="line-height:1.231;"> Compare that to some of the other techs, even the "clean hands" of Apple.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">The facts don't support Mel's portrayal pf Google as not respecting others patents, much less lumping them in with Samsung as he does.</span>
As usual, you get everything backwards. It isn't Apple that's being investigated by both the EU and the US for violations, it's Google and Samsung. Apple has won most of their cases, and mist if the few that Samsung and Google have won are being thrown out. You know this, so don't act copy.
As usual, you get everything backwards. It isn't Apple that's being investigated by both the EU and the US for violations, it's Google and Samsung. Apple has won most of their cases, and mist if the few that Samsung and Google have won are being thrown out. You know this, so don't act copy.
Didn't you just say "In addition, it doesn't matter what a company feels is its due, what matters is whether they can prove they are due it." Now you're going back to "they must be guilty because there's a lawsuit or claim or simply because I say they are.". Wish you'd make up your mind.
Was I wrong about Google being found guilty of a single patent infringement over the past several years while Apple has been found to infringe on 8 or more in just the past several months?
Despite all your bluster about Google not respecting other's IP, where's the proof Mel? I take it you don't dispute my comments on patents and copyright violations, instead moving your discussion in a new direction and ignoring what I actually said.
As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there.
The American patent system is completely screwed too.
Companies can sue based on things they didn't actually invent to extort money out of companies that actually innovate and make products (the patent troll problem).
On the other hand, companies who have made legitimate innovations can't successfully defend themselves from imitators.
Then you get into the whole software patent debate...
The world has changed, but the patent system hasn't changed with it....
Didn't you just say "<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">In addition, it doesn't matter what a company feels is its due, what matters is whether they can prove they are due it." Now you're going back to "they must be guilty because there's a lawsuit or claim or simply because I say they are.". Wish you'd make up your mind. </span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">Was I wrong about Google being found guilty of a single patent infringement over the past several years while Apple has been found to infringe on 8 or more in just the past several months?</span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">Despite all your bluster about Google not respecting other's IP, where's the proof Mel? I take it you don't dispute my comments on patents and copyright violations, instead moving your discussion in a new direction and ignoring what I actually said.</span>
Cute, but as usual, wrong. Almost all of the 26 wins Apple has over Samsung involve Android. Motorola, which is owned by Google hasn't done well either. Apple has won against them as well. Microsoft has won more of their claims against Google than Google has won against them, so stop being so naive.
The American patent system is completely screwed too.
Companies can sue based on things they didn't actually invent to extort money out of companies that actually innovate and make products (the patent troll problem).
On the other hand, companies who have made legitimate innovations can't successfully defend themselves from imitators.
Then you get into the whole software patent debate...
The world has changed, but the patent system hasn't changed with it....
The exact same thing happens in the EU, so don't pretend it doesn't. It's just that there are no really big European companies that are doing well these days in any important area of consumer electronics, so there isn't much happening. Nokia, though, has announced that they will be suing companies over patents in order to raise money. They're about 50/50 so far in their cases.
Google has had few patents.but they've even announced, through the usual mouthpiece, Eric Schmitt, that they're entitled to other company's IP. That when they steal (though obviously he didn't use that word, what he was saying amounted to the same thing) that IP, they're innovating, and should be allowed to use it. Really?
Cute, but as usual, wrong. Almost all of the 26 wins Apple has over Samsung involve Android. Motorola, which is owned by Google hasn't done well either. Apple has won against them as well. Microsoft has won more of their claims against Google than Google has won against them, so stop being so naive.
You're saying Google has been found guilty of over 20 Android IP violations? BS. Too, what does Microsoft have to do with my post claims?
Fact: Apple has been found to infringe on more patents in just the last year than Google has in the entire history of their company. If you don't consider Apple to be a habitual patent thief, which I'm sure neither of us does, how is it you make that claim against Google with a straight face?
Google has had few patents.but they've even announced, through the usual mouthpiece, Eric Schmitt, that they're entitled to other company's IP. That when they steal (though obviously he didn't use that word, what he was saying amounted to the same thing) that IP, they're innovating, and should be allowed to use it. Really?
When did Google / Schmidt ever say that they're entitled to other companies' IP?
(I highly suspect you're innocently repeating an internet myth... especially if this came from a certain bogus letter interpretation by All Things D.)
Comments
"Would it be an idea if the legal system aided he Patent Office? Instead bullying companies trying to protect their IP?"
Exactly what I was thinking when I first read this. Why is the judge whining about having to do his job and instead directly the whining toward the USPTO which created the mess in the first place. If you don't like all the jargon then have the rules amended to do something about it. Don't go after the two parties that are following the rules they are given.
Sounds like this judge needs to retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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. (snip)
I'm sure you're right about your particular situation. And I agree about engineers being consulted along the way. Been there.
However... in this particular case... the judge's ruling was specifically about the enormous time burden the 100 claims construction hearings (the Markman process) could impose. If it only took a half a day per word, it would take ten weeks. It could take less, or it could take much longer.
This has nothing to do with business decisions (*). It is about patent wording, something patent lawyers are paid to worry and argue about (plus they now have quite a lot of experience arguing many of these patents). Then the decision over each word has to be made by the judge.
So what to do? Should a court be held up for months over the word meaning of extra claims that wouldn't succeed anyway? This is why multiple judges have now made the same request: don't burden the court with dozens of claim wording hearings that won't matter. Instead, figure out what your most important (and likely to succeed) claims are and concentrate on those. It only takes one claim per patent to win.
(*) Except that of course the judge would love them to settle out of court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
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/
Mel, perhaps Nokia or Moto feels they're being ripped off by companies like Apple, who sometimes neglect paying for others IP. Surely you don't think it's just a one-way street so your comments could apply to Apple too I presume. It's not as tho they've never been found to use a patent or two without a license to it. It happened again just a week or so ago. tho it doesn't necessarily follow that it's intentional "stealing" as it's really tough to avoid with so many patents floating around. Now that I've said that, has Google ever been found to infringe on someone else patents? Perhaps they have. I haven't checked but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
EDIT: I can find a single Linux patent Google was found to infringe a couple years ago. Cost them $5M. Other than that they seem generally in the clear so they're certainly not serial violators of other's patents as far as I can see. I can quickly find at least 8 different patents belonging to others that courts found Apple to be infringing in just the last year or so.
...and then there's Samsung who's really been on an infringement roll lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
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.
"As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there."
If that's the best you can do its not worth reading the rest.
But you top yourself
"Most of the modern computer, telecommunications and content industries as currently evolved, have evolved because of some Apple invention, product, or service."
Which is going from the absurd to the ridiculous.
Respect /s
Then there are Europeans with a different view, probably because they're Europeans, and look differently at why things are the way they are. I'm not saying you don't understand, but you have to admit that 'petty parochialism' likely raises some European eyebrows.
1. Would it be possible for companies to infringe without knowing? Could Apple have bought 3G radio chips for their phones from a company expecting procured products to be infringe-free?
2. Copyright violation:
Google Found Guilty In Belgium For Newspapers' Copyright Infringement link
3. Patent infringement:
A San Francisco jury ruled that Google violated copyright law in an action brought by Oracle. The jury did not decide on the secondary issue of whether using an API is fair use. link
4. Mondovino copyright law breach, Paris court fines Google for copyright breaches:
1, 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Then there are Europeans with a different view, probably because they're Europeans, and look differently at why things are the way they are. I'm not saying you don't understand, but you have to admit that 'petty parochialism' likely raises some European eyebrows.
1. Would it be possible for companies to infringe without knowing? Could Apple have bought 3G radio chips for their phones from a company expecting procured products to be infringe-free?
2. Copyright violation:
Google Found Guilty In Belgium For Newspapers' Copyright Infringement link
3. Patent infringement:
A San Francisco jury ruled that Google violated copyright law in an action brought by Oracle. The jury did not decide on the secondary issue of whether using an API is fair use. link
4. Mondovino copyright law breach, Paris court fines Google for copyright breaches:
1, 2
Thanks for the couple of copyright violation mentions. I remembered one from the Oracle trial and I see there was another in France very recently according to your link. Note your #3 mention wasn't a patent. I still don't see any more than one single patent infringement in at least the last several years. For a company the size of Google it looks admirable. Compare that to some of the other techs, even the "clean hands" of Apple.
The facts don't support Mel's portrayal pf Google as not respecting others patents, much less lumping them in with Samsung as he does.
I know, not much weight (or however I should describe these issues). I really have no idea on how much any company really abuses their power, knowingly infringing, or disregarding laws and IP. Perhaps some companies don't even know this themselves, save for the cases that we do read upon and seem very clear on the issue.
If I weren't so interested in tech in general, I'd have more time to read up on all these things, alas, I don't.
Now don't go and blame the wording in the patents themselves. That's really quite a stretch. A patent is both an engineering and a legal document. Wording must follow certain rules. I've written documentation for the equipment I've designed for my company. It's not like writing to a friend. Patents must be written in ways that cover. Eventualities. One wrong word can screw it all up. Of course it's fairly obtuse. But that's not a problem.
The problem is when a company violates that patent. So blame the violator. And remember that in these patent wars, Apple is way ahead. When it comes to Samsung, for example, it's Apple 26 and Samsung 3 so far. Almost every claim Motorola/Google has made around the world has either been minor, denied, or overturned. Both Motorola, and now, by extension, Google, and Samsung are being investigated as violators of patent licensing rules both here and in the EU.
So when looking at all this, we need to understand what the problem really is. It's Google and Samsung.
The judge here is over his head. I understand that judges are overworked, and are frustrated at the complexity of these cases. But they are what they are. To expect companies to happily give up claims that could define the company over the next decade or two isn't entirely fair for the purpose of just saving some of the court's time.
First of all, there's no evidence that Motorola has any case at all in any jurisdiction. All of their claims have been thrown out in their entirety, or are now in the process of being thrown out. And, as you know very well, they are under investigations for violating their agreements as to FRAND licensing, which is the only place they have any argument at all, but apparently, those rulings in their favor in the EU are in the process of being thrown out as well.
As far as Nokia goes, Apple was negotiating with them as well. Nokia wanted more than Apple would pay. Eventually, Apple agreed to pay about two thirds of what Nokia was demanding. So they both got some of what they wanted.
In addition, it doesn't matter what a company feels is its due, what matters is whether they can prove they are due it. So far, Apple's opposition hasn't done very well there, and Apple has done much better. That should tell you about the validity of the claims.
As far as the thief, Samsung goes, as I mentioned above, it's Apple 26 and Samsung 3 in the courts worldwide.
Since you first claimed that is was out system that was screwed, and that we therefor spdeserve what's happening, you can't throw ant stones at me for poi ting out the truth of what's happening where you live. Perhaps you are embarrassed at that, and forgot all the problems you have there. I can forgive that. If I lived there, I would want to forget all the problems too.
Well, it certainly is petty parochialism. When the EU formulates systemwide laws, and the various countries constantly violate those laws, then that term certainly applies.
Perhaps you remember what happened to Apple there a few years ago regarding the various national iTunes stores? Apple was accused of charging different prices in each country, which supposedly goes against the fair competition laws the EU had put in place. They went to investigate Apple, and perhaps fine them. But it turned out that Apple had no choice, because each country, in violation of the EU laws, was forcing Apple to deal with their own royalty collection agencies, and required Apple to set different prices in each country.
So what happened? The EU commissioner apologized to Apple, and acknowledged that they were being forced to do this by the individual countries, despite it being a violation of the EU laws regarding those types of stores and products. What happened after that? Did the EU force the countries to retract their laws and follow the EU law and allow Apple to have one store, with one price across the entire EU? No, they whined about the countries not following the laws, and dropped the entire matter.
This is typically how the EU operates.
The EU law about budget deficits for each country are that they may not exceed 3%. If they do, the country is fined a good deal of money. That worked for small countries, who would get fined when that happened. But when both France and Germany went over the 3%, they warned the finance commission not to dare to fine them, and they didn't.
Again, a typical way problems are handled over there.
As far as the specifics you mentioned, yes, that's what happened.
But it's actually worse. Both Motorola and Samsung are unethical. Both approached Broadcom and Qualcomm about that chip licensing. Now it must be remembered that there are two principles at work here. The first is that the chip manufacturers license the microcode from the companies who have the patents. The second it the right of first sale.
The first means that both Broadcom and Qualcomm already paid the licensing fees for that tech. The second it that licensing fees die at that point, and purchAsers of those chips done need to pay the fees. In addition, both Motorola and Samsung had signed contracts specifically stating that purchAsers of the chips, and downstream users of said equipment had no license fees to pay because they were already paid by the manufacturers of the chips.
But both Motorola and Samsung wanted Broadcom and Qualcomm to allow them to rewrite the contracts to specifically eliminate Apple from ability of buyi g the chips and not paying licensing. Both Broadcom and Qualcomm released public statements saying that they refused and that it was improper to expect that they would agree. The possibility of action in court over this by Motorola and Samsung was ended.
Both Motorola and Samsung have been acting very unethically in all of this, everywhere around the world. From asking up to 1,000 times the worth of a FRAND patent, to suing over matters that they must have known were improper. They have had no real serious IP to sue Apple over. Motorola even stated that the reason they sued Apple in this case was because they were sure that Apple would sue them, so they wanted to do it first. That makes no sense. It took Apple a bit of time to respond. If they were planning on suing, it would have happened faster, because they would have been in the process of maki ghtir case ready.
It's felt that at that time, Google and Motorola were in negotiations, and so Motorola sued Apple as a front for Google. This supposedly, would make Google's case for buying the at the outrageous price they paid more meaningful.
As Motorola was failing before the purchase, and is failing more rapidly now, along with the worthless cases they fired at Apple, I'm pretty sure that at some point, Google will need to write off most of the $12.5 billion purchase.
I can't wait!
As usual, you get everything backwards. It isn't Apple that's being investigated by both the EU and the US for violations, it's Google and Samsung. Apple has won most of their cases, and mist if the few that Samsung and Google have won are being thrown out. You know this, so don't act copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As usual, you get everything backwards. It isn't Apple that's being investigated by both the EU and the US for violations, it's Google and Samsung. Apple has won most of their cases, and mist if the few that Samsung and Google have won are being thrown out. You know this, so don't act copy.
Didn't you just say "In addition, it doesn't matter what a company feels is its due, what matters is whether they can prove they are due it." Now you're going back to "they must be guilty because there's a lawsuit or claim or simply because I say they are.". Wish you'd make up your mind.
Was I wrong about Google being found guilty of a single patent infringement over the past several years while Apple has been found to infringe on 8 or more in just the past several months?
Despite all your bluster about Google not respecting other's IP, where's the proof Mel? I take it you don't dispute my comments on patents and copyright violations, instead moving your discussion in a new direction and ignoring what I actually said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As a European, you shouldn't comment then, because your system is completely screwed, as are most things there.
The American patent system is completely screwed too.
Companies can sue based on things they didn't actually invent to extort money out of companies that actually innovate and make products (the patent troll problem).
On the other hand, companies who have made legitimate innovations can't successfully defend themselves from imitators.
Then you get into the whole software patent debate...
The world has changed, but the patent system hasn't changed with it....
Cute, but as usual, wrong. Almost all of the 26 wins Apple has over Samsung involve Android. Motorola, which is owned by Google hasn't done well either. Apple has won against them as well. Microsoft has won more of their claims against Google than Google has won against them, so stop being so naive.
The exact same thing happens in the EU, so don't pretend it doesn't. It's just that there are no really big European companies that are doing well these days in any important area of consumer electronics, so there isn't much happening. Nokia, though, has announced that they will be suing companies over patents in order to raise money. They're about 50/50 so far in their cases.
Google has had few patents.but they've even announced, through the usual mouthpiece, Eric Schmitt, that they're entitled to other company's IP. That when they steal (though obviously he didn't use that word, what he was saying amounted to the same thing) that IP, they're innovating, and should be allowed to use it. Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Cute, but as usual, wrong. Almost all of the 26 wins Apple has over Samsung involve Android. Motorola, which is owned by Google hasn't done well either. Apple has won against them as well. Microsoft has won more of their claims against Google than Google has won against them, so stop being so naive.
You're saying Google has been found guilty of over 20 Android IP violations? BS. Too, what does Microsoft have to do with my post claims?
Fact: Apple has been found to infringe on more patents in just the last year than Google has in the entire history of their company. If you don't consider Apple to be a habitual patent thief, which I'm sure neither of us does, how is it you make that claim against Google with a straight face?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Google has had few patents.but they've even announced, through the usual mouthpiece, Eric Schmitt, that they're entitled to other company's IP. That when they steal (though obviously he didn't use that word, what he was saying amounted to the same thing) that IP, they're innovating, and should be allowed to use it. Really?
When did Google / Schmidt ever say that they're entitled to other companies' IP?
(I highly suspect you're innocently repeating an internet myth... especially if this came from a certain bogus letter interpretation by All Things D.)