Court denies Verizon, Ford participation in Apple v. Motorola appeals
A Court of Appeals has denied a request by Verizon, Ford, and others to file briefs weighing in on the pending appeals process in the ongoing patent struggle between Apple and Motorola.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down its decision on Thursday, forbidding Verizon, Ford, and the American Association of Advertising Agencies from participating in Apple and Motorola's patent litigation. The three firms each support Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing of patented technologies essential to the development of, in this case, electronic devices. FRAND is the standard meant to ensure that companies developing new essential technologies do not use patents on such technologies to exercise monopolistic control over those inventions.
Collectively, Verizon and its co-filers were calling for an end to product bans tied to standards-essential patents and urging constraints on royalty damages based on alternative technologies available when a product was being designed.
Apple had been open to the possibility of those entities participating, according to Foss Patents' Florian Mueller, but Google-owned Motorola objected to third-party stakeholder participation.
Motorola ? which sued Apple over standards-essential patents ? argued that even though the third parties worded their filing as if it supported neither Apple nor Motorola, their arguments were all in support of Apple. That move, Mueller wrote, meant that Motorola had to take a position that ran counter to what it had said in its opening brief.
"Google [which owns Motorola] now agrees with Microsoft [which supported Apple in an amicus brief]," Mueller wrote, "that the issues on appeal are very case-specific, while it originally claimed that Judge Posner established a bright-line rule denying injunctions to [standards-essential patent] holders."
Earlier this year, in filing an amicus brief on the case, Microsoft had argued that the setting of standards would, in itself, constitute antitrust violation if it were done so without the FRAND structure to protect others seeking to use the patented properties.
Motorola originally sued Apple over wireless technologies Motorola had patented. Apple countersued in 2010, alleging violations of touchscreen patents it held.
In 2012, Judge Posner denied Motorola injunctive relief against Apple's iPhone and other devices, which Motorola said violated patents it held. In this appeal, Motorola is seeking to reverse Posner's initial ruling, while Apple is looking to have it affirmed.
The Court of Appeals will hear Apple and Motorola's cross-appeal of Posner's decision on September 11. Legal experts have previously commented that at least some of Posner's decision will likely be reversed or vacated, due to assorted precedents.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down its decision on Thursday, forbidding Verizon, Ford, and the American Association of Advertising Agencies from participating in Apple and Motorola's patent litigation. The three firms each support Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing of patented technologies essential to the development of, in this case, electronic devices. FRAND is the standard meant to ensure that companies developing new essential technologies do not use patents on such technologies to exercise monopolistic control over those inventions.
Collectively, Verizon and its co-filers were calling for an end to product bans tied to standards-essential patents and urging constraints on royalty damages based on alternative technologies available when a product was being designed.
Apple had been open to the possibility of those entities participating, according to Foss Patents' Florian Mueller, but Google-owned Motorola objected to third-party stakeholder participation.
Motorola ? which sued Apple over standards-essential patents ? argued that even though the third parties worded their filing as if it supported neither Apple nor Motorola, their arguments were all in support of Apple. That move, Mueller wrote, meant that Motorola had to take a position that ran counter to what it had said in its opening brief.
"Google [which owns Motorola] now agrees with Microsoft [which supported Apple in an amicus brief]," Mueller wrote, "that the issues on appeal are very case-specific, while it originally claimed that Judge Posner established a bright-line rule denying injunctions to [standards-essential patent] holders."
Earlier this year, in filing an amicus brief on the case, Microsoft had argued that the setting of standards would, in itself, constitute antitrust violation if it were done so without the FRAND structure to protect others seeking to use the patented properties.
Motorola originally sued Apple over wireless technologies Motorola had patented. Apple countersued in 2010, alleging violations of touchscreen patents it held.
In 2012, Judge Posner denied Motorola injunctive relief against Apple's iPhone and other devices, which Motorola said violated patents it held. In this appeal, Motorola is seeking to reverse Posner's initial ruling, while Apple is looking to have it affirmed.
The Court of Appeals will hear Apple and Motorola's cross-appeal of Posner's decision on September 11. Legal experts have previously commented that at least some of Posner's decision will likely be reversed or vacated, due to assorted precedents.
Comments
IMHO the other parties' participation isn't really necessary. The situation with standards essential patents is straight forward, and the Office of the POTUS recently confirmed it with the veto.
Kasper's Slave would have done well to point out that the patents Apple is suing Motorola and others over are not standards essential.
Neither the filings nor comments were made by Google despite how FOSSPatents reports it. It was a Motorola (MM) lawsuit when it started and is still a Motorola (MM) lawsuit three years later. Google has never made any comments or filings in relation to it AFAIK.
Something no one seems to pay attention to is that the only new IP lawsuit that Motorola Mobility filed after Google purchased them last year was quickly withdrawn just weeks later.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153074/motorola-surprises-by-withdrawing-entire-itc-complaint-against-apple/80
IMO that probably was at Google's insistence and over Motorola Mobility's objections. MM very obviously thought it was a good idea in August. Six weeks later the 7 (apparently non-SEP) patent infringement claims were dropped without any explanation. If Google's intent was really to attack Apple using MM as a proxy those 7 new claims would not have been withdrawn. Common sense isn't it?
No doubt Google could insist this old inherited one be dropped too, but with Apple continuing it's claims what would be the wisdom, legal or otherwise, in MM dropping their half of it before it plays out? Google would be choosing to cause potential harm to MM by insisting they stand in a clearing and take a bullet. (
BTW, even when Motorola originally filed the case in 2010 it wasn't asserting just FRAND-pledged IP. It just happened that the other claims have been trimmed in previous rulings so that what is left now is an SEP. With luck this will all be done and over in a few weeks anyway with no new cases waiting. This is just the tail-end of an old lawsuit that shouldn't have happened in the first place IMO.
Baloney.
While you might have been able to make that argument over the original lawsuit (although it would have been a silly argument since Google could have stopped the lawsuit at any time if they had wished), the argument is completely false now. Motorola was 100% owned by Google at the time that the appeal was initiated and therefore, Google is responsible for the appeal.
... and Apple is responsible for laying-off long-time Filemaker employees? Nope, not in my opinion.
BTW, this is the original lawsuit. There's no new IP claims in the Apple or Motorola appeal as I would guess you would have known. You're a good businessman and apparently familiar with how lawsuits and the resultant appeals work.
This case is about how much Apple has to pay Motorola. There is no doubt that Apple owns Motorola FRAN payments for the IP. The only question at this point is how much. Apple has been saying that Motorola has been trying to blackmail them into paying more than they should.The Judge deciding not to allow Motorola to stop shipment of the Iphone because they could not decide how much Apple had to pay is not the way to do it. Plus it is not in Motorola's best interest to stop the shipment since ever unit Apple ships means money in their pocket and consider how they been hemorrhaging money for the last 5 year.
This is all mute IMHO, since Motorola phones will be dead in two yrs, Google and their lawyer running the company will destroy what is left.
:no:
So you don't understand the difference between laying off an employee and a multibillion dollar lawsuit? (not to mention that Apple MAY have had to approve something as minor as a layoff).
Figures.
Sorry, but you're the one who is confused. The appeal is not automatic. Someone had to make a decision to file an appeal. And a decision of this scope is certainly material to the business and would therefore have been approved by Google.
Isn't it still the original lawsuit that's in appeal? If so why would you think it to be unexpected for MM to appeal the court's ruling on it's lawsuit if Apple is doing the same for the parts it didn't like? As I believe you've mentioned before with regard to Apple, an appeal of an unfavorable ruling is pretty much automatic isn't it? I personally doubt Sergey Brin had to make the decision for MM.
Now when MM dropped the new ITC patent infringement action against Apple within 6 weeks of filing it I think that probably was Google stepping in. That's one I would agree you could have legitimately pasted on Google if it had continued. Not sure how you'd reconcile a belief that Google is out to get Apple using MM as a proxy tho if Google made the call to MM to drop the 2012 ITC case. Perhaps you have an explanation for a bit of a conundrum.
There's no conundrum - other than why you keep insisting on posting about things you don't understand.
Why is it that you agree that Google gets involved in MM cases when it suits your argument but deny that they get involved when it doesn't suit your argument?
In reality, a parent company gets involved in any issues that are material to the future of the subsidiary. A billion dollar case is material and Google would be involved (which you admit when you agree that they probably caused MM to drop the ITC case). Each case is evaluated on its own merits. In the case of the appeal in this thread, Google decided to file an appeal (that appeal is not automatic. They had to actually make a decision to file for the appeal - and this decision was made after they acquired MM). For whatever reason, they felt that the appeal was justified.
In the ITC case, they apparently decided that pursuing the case was not useful. Maybe they thought their chances of winning were close to zero. Or maybe they did it for political reasons because of the other suits pending. It really doesn't matter since you agree that Google made the decision.
In the end, when the issues are this large, the parent company makes the decision. Period. The fact that you can't understand why they made the decision or the fact that you want to play hypocritical games and pretend that they only get involved in some billion dollar decisions is immaterial.
...and that's where we disagree. Realistically what would have been a reason not to appeal? It didn't require much thought.I personally believe it was a practically automatic decision made by MM to appeal and not Google particularly since Apple was already appealing what they didn't agree with from Posner's decision.
Do you truly and honestly think not appealing could have been in any way a supportable business decision? If so, how?
Whether they were owned by Google, or Nokia, or Foxconn or still a subsidiary of Motorola their decision to appeal would have been the same IMO. I believe you think so too. Therefore why do you think it required Google's intervention to convince them an appeal alongside Apple's is the proper action. No sir, I believe this was a decision that MM's own General Counsel, who had responsibility for MM's legal planning (both before and after Google got involved), was eminently qualified and expected to make. If your subsidiary's general counsel knows that Apple is appealing their loss and isn't sure if his company should too, and asking you as CEO of the home company what should be done, I suggest the GC isn't competent. It's a no-brainer decision, or should be.
In the case of the ITC Google would appear to have overridden MM's decision to begin another round of lawsuits after MM's counsel had committed to proceed. The right choice too IMO, but I don't work for 'em so it doesn't matter.
In this appeal of Posner's decision I don't believe it required any input from Google for MM to decide to proceed with a common-sense appeal that everyone expected.
EDIT: To be clear I'm not waiting on a reply. We obviously just disagree on whether Motorola's actions with regard to this specific case would be any different if Google didn't own them. I feel there would be no change and Moto would have taken the same actions, while I guess you think it's all driven by Google if I understand you correctly. A difference of opinion at the end of the day.
Since it's obvious that you don't understand the legal system, it's not surprising that you're confused.
I already gave you two possible reasons why Google might have not appealed the ITC decision:
1. They may have felt that their chances of prevailing were close to zero and not worth the effort.
2. (more likely). They were trying to get an injunction against Apple at the time and may have felt that giving in on this particular case might have strengthened their chances of getting an injunction in the other case.
I missed that particular Google Board meeting, so I don't know for sure, but clearly Google was involved (as even you admit).
Put simply, companies do not make potentially multibillion dollar decisions without talking to their parent company.
I don't think I'm the one confused. You're offering likely reasons why Google "might not have appealed the ITC decision"?? :err:
There was no appeal involved since it didn't even get to the point of being heard in the first place. The new ITC case MM lodged against Apple last year was then dropped by MM, likely at Google's insistence, just 6 weeks later even tho the ITC had already accepted and scheduled the case. You appear to have confused it with something else entirely which might explain your reply.
Go back a few posts (#5) and read the link to an earlier AI article I provided so you wouldn't misunderstand as you apparently have. I'm sorry I didn't realize that before spending so much time replying back.
No prob, it happens.
It's very simple.
You want to pretend that Google was involved in not pursuing the ITC case, but also want to pretend that they were NOT involved in the Motorola case vs Apple.
That's simple hypocrisy - which is what everyone has come to expect from you. You're willing to accept that Google was involved when it helps you make a point, but insist that they couldn't have been involved when it doesn't help your case.
In the real world (as opposed to the Google-funded shill world you apparently live in), Google had the right to be involved in any legal case involving Motorola after the acquisitions. In big business (which you apparently have absolutely no experience with), parent companies always get involved when enormous sums of money are involved.
As I said, I don't know why Google had Motorola drop the ITC case, but the reason doesn't matter. Even you admit that Google was involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Motorola does all the dirty work, so Google can keep its hands clean.
More like Google doesn't want additional attention to it's monopoly status on web services. Also, vertically aligning web services directly to a hardware device is an unfortunate side effect of the GW Bush Nazi Spy Agency or NSA.
Without the requirements of spying, several companies could likely compete against Google, but the Government wants all the information in one place.
Not to bring in politics but Obama has been president for the 4+ years.