Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Apple

Judge Suggests Apple, Motorola Should Play Nice 140

Posted by samzenpus
from the keep-your-litigation-to-yourself dept.
sl4shd0rk writes "Federal Judge Richard Posner seems to be a man who gets the screwed up patent system in the U.S. As Apple pressed for more injunctions against Motorola regarding alleged patent infringement, Judge Posner has stressed the two companies should just 'get along' and pay each other royalties. A jury trial set to start last week was cancelled when Posner ruled that neither side could prove damages, and grilled Apple's legal team saying an injunction against Motorola would be 'contrary to the public interest.' Furthermore, as Apple tried to plead its injunction case concerning four patents, Posner called the U.S. patent system 'chaos' and said an order barring the sale of Motorola phones could have 'catastrophic effects.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Suggests Apple, Motorola Should Play Nice

Comments Filter:
  • by easyTree (1042254) on Friday June 22, 2012 @03:25AM (#40408683)

    They could always get some other phone.

    First they came for Motorola,
      and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Motorola fan-boy.

    Then they came for Nokia,
      and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Nokia fan-boy.

    Then they came for HTC,
      and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an HTC fan-boy.

    Then they came for me
      and there was no one left to speak out for me.

  • by wierd_w (1375923) on Friday June 22, 2012 @04:08AM (#40408855)

    I agree with the judge. Apple should get a reasonable, and non-predatory royalty for any alledgedly used patents, not an injunction barring anybody else from making phones that aren't tincans on wires.

    But that would be contrary to the memory of dr evi..I mean, Steve Jobs, who famously said he would [expletive] destroy android.

    Apple doesn't want a royalty. They want dominance. I hope the judge hands them their balls on a plate instead.

  • by blackest_k (761565) on Friday June 22, 2012 @04:22AM (#40408915) Homepage Journal

    There is a massive supply chain and investment that goes into the production of these shiny toys. That is the catastrophe when all of a sudden you can't bring your product to market. That investment can become a massive loss.

    Any company that uses lawyers to ban competing products is going to get a bad reputation and damage their own sales.

    Is an iPad such a bad product that it can not compete with a Samsung tablet? If I want a Samsung tablet and I can't buy it because of Apple, I really don't think I will buy an iPad instead. I probably will buy a different tablet from a different manufacturer.

    I may well refuse to buy Apple products in general due to their interference manipulating what I can buy.

    Change the company names and the products to suit your own preferences, it doesn't really matter who's manipulating markets through court rooms. They deserve to lose sales due to their tactics.

    Products should compete on their merits not on legal technicalities where 2 engineering teams solved similar problems, independently of each other.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Friday June 22, 2012 @07:01AM (#40409543) Homepage

    Remind me, who exactly is it that implements these most hallowed "checks" and "balances" to laws that take a huge steaming dump all over the Constitution?

    Superman, right? That's who does it? Or Jesus. Or Super-Jesus-man?

    A judge who interprets Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 literally, including the preamble which clearly explains its actual purpose and goal, is OK in my book.

  • by MrMickS (568778) on Friday June 22, 2012 @07:44AM (#40409731) Homepage Journal

    FFS Motorola are trying to charge way above the norm for FRAND patents. If everyone with a FRAND patent charged the percentage Motorola is after there would be no way for anyone to make anything.

    Its much easier to just bash Apple though. Way to let your agenda and prejudice show.

  • by Rich0 (548339) on Friday June 22, 2012 @08:03AM (#40409821) Homepage

    Yes and no. Judges ought to apply the law and constitution as they were intended to be applied. Whether this is 100% consistent with their wording is not as much of a concern for me.

    It seems like the US legal system has become one big game, where people do stuff that clearly harms the public, with the only justification being "but I'm obligated to be selfish and the letter of the law lets me get away with it..."

    The solution is to simply apply common sense. If somebody deducts $300M from their taxes because they bought a sewer system in France and leased it back to the municipality, then simply rule that they owe the taxes anyway plus penalties so that the company is out the penalties and whatever loss they incurred on sewer deal. If you quit letting people abuse loopholes they'll stop doing it. When they complain that the letter of the law allows it, the answer is "so what."

    When my computer crashes because it blindly follows an algorithm that is imperfect, I'll accept that this is one of the limitations of computers that we accept because they're so much cheaper. When human beings behave in the same way, then I have to wonder why we bother to pay them...

  • I was going to say "everything that the non-Technical consumer likes is evil"

    How about "everything deliberately antagonistic to technical users is evil"?

    Maybe "only the perceived underdog is not evil"?

    That view would fit in with Slashdot commenters' view of antitrust law. The market leader, especially one in a position of exclusive rights, is likely to have market power [wikipedia.org] and is likely to have abused this market power.

  • by brokeninside (34168) on Friday June 22, 2012 @08:21AM (#40409929)

    That's an ironic comment on Posner who champions judicial pragmatism which, so far as I can tell, is what used to be called legal realism back in the days of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The chief tenet of this judicial philosophy is that law is nothing more than a prediction of how judges will rule and the state will enforce the laws. The theoretical content is minimal. Everything is reduced that which actually happens.

    In this view, any `intent' by the framers of a law is only as relevant as the police and judges hold it to be. No more, no less.

  • by lorenlal (164133) on Friday June 22, 2012 @08:43AM (#40410045)

    Nope. Not biased at all. The suit that Motorola fired against Apple was a direct reply to the suit the Apple opened against Motorola for violating Apple's patents.

    See, Apple is vilified in this case because they aren't asking for compensation, they're trying to leverage their patents to *prevent anyone from licensing them or bringing a competitive product to market.* Motorola does license their FRAND patent fairly, with one exception being made for customers who are currently suing them.

    Apple's actions are completely against any spirit of patents. They're not just a dick maneuvers, they harm markets, prevent innovation, and hurt us (the consumers). Considering that Apple has a bit of history of manipulating images to "prove" likeness with Samsung, the population here is going to side with whomever Apple is suing.

    And given your posting history, I'd be very cautious when calling someone a shill.

  • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Merk42 (1906718) on Friday June 22, 2012 @08:46AM (#40410079)

    Catastrophic effects are good. That will lead to changes in the patent systems which will benefit everyone...

    You're assuming that second part would happen...

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.

Working...