decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
HTC-Apple Stipulation Filed with Del. Court Contradicts FOSSPatents on Terms of Agreement ~pj Updated
Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST

FOSSPatents has published what it claims is the redacted version of the Apple-HTC agreement settling all claims between them. I didn't link to it or write about it
1) because he doesn't say where he got it, so I could not verify whether it was legitimate or reliable, and

2) because I respect the court's right to decide what is made public and what is not.

And it looks like I was right to wait and see.

The now filed stipulation, titled "Stipulation of Dismissal of Entire Action," in the HTC v. Apple litigation in Delaware states clearly that Apple's claims are dismissed without prejudice but HTC's are dismissed *with* prejudice. That directly contradicts what FOSSPatents claimed was in the 'settlement agreement'. His article claims that both parties claims were dismissed *without* prejudice.

In his article, at fosspatents.com/2012/11/apple-htc-license-agreement-would.html, he wrote:

5. What's clearly unusual is that the dismissals of the parties' various U.S. actions will be dismissals without prejudice, theoretically keeping the door open to future reassertions. This is presumably part of the protection that Apple wanted against a change of control. The change-of-control rules and the kind of dismissal applies to both parties, but realistically, Apple is not going to be acquired during the ten-year term, while HTC is small enough that many other industry players could afford a deal. If anyone wants to buy HTC now, it's still possible, but the Apple agreement won't benefit the new owner (unless the new owner previously secures Apple's consent).
That appears to be incorrect information, judging from the actual stipulation language filed in this US litigation between the parties. What might the explanation be? Maybe what he found is an authentic copy and, not being a lawyer or trained in US law in any way, he just misunderstood it? What else might be inaccurate in the account, then? Maybe it's an earlier draft? Maybe the stipulation is wrong? (I doubt that very much, but I'm listing all the possibilities I can think of.) Maybe I'm misreading something? We'll have to wait and see. Perhaps FOSSPatents can tell the world the source of the version he obtained, so we can get to the bottom of it.

Just trying to keep up with all the misinformation out there. Sooooo much of it. This is why I rarely get a day off and never got to actually retire. The misinformation seems to never quit, and with legal coverage -- as opposed to propaganda, headline seeking or covering the Kardashians -- accuracy is vital.

My advice is simple: rely on what you find on PACER or on checkable information. If you can't check it yourself, how do you know it's so? That is why I always give you a way to check.

If you wish to check the case, it's docket number 1:11-cv-00785-GMS, the GMS standing for the judge's initials.

Here's the text of the stipulation:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

HTC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

_________________

C.A. No. 11-785-GMS

_________________

STIPULATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant HTC Corporation (“HTC”) and Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), that each and every claim and counterclaim between Apple and HTC in the above captioned matter is hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE solely with respect to HTC and WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Apple and to any other person or entity, and that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

DATED: November 14, 2012

YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
[signature]
/s/ Karen L. Pascale
Karen L. Pascale (#2903)
James L. Higgins (#5021)
[address, phone, emails]

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant, HTC Corporation

MORRIS JAMES LLP
[signature]
Richard K. Herrmann (#405)
Mary B. Matterer (#2696)
[address, phone, emails]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff, Apple Inc.

Update: He doesn't explain where he got the agreement and he doesn't admit error. Here's what he does say:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/google-loan-patents-received-special.html

FOSSPatents now says he wishes to clarify, and he now claims, unprovable one way or another so far, that all patent claims would be dismissed without prejudice under the agreement with respect to HTC and Apple's own patents. As to the ones Google licensed to HTC, he claims those HTC's claims are dismissed with prejudice but Apple's without prejudice.

Looming over all of this is: why did he get it wrong originally, since presumably the Exhibit he claims he found this new information on was attached when he wrote his first article, and where can the public go to verify *any* of this? He also claims a Nokia element to the agreement. So did Microsoft give him the agreement? Or Apple? Or Nokia? What is the real story here and why isn't he telling it straightforwardly?


  


HTC-Apple Stipulation Filed with Del. Court Contradicts FOSSPatents on Terms of Agreement ~pj Updated | 186 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: kg on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 08:37 PM EST


---

--
IANAL
Open Source Developer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Or maybe, ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 09:05 PM EST
... just maybe, and I want to prepare you in advance for this
potentially stunning revelation, you might want to consider
the possibility that FOSSPatents is run by an IDIOT.

Just raising that as a possibility. The evidence seems to
suggest this more and more as time goes by.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Florian is consistent
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 09:12 PM EST

Consistently wrong. You figure that even he would get it, sooner or later.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

HTC-Apple Stipulation Filed with Del. Court Contradicts FOSSPatents on Terms of Agreement ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST
OK. What exactly does the difference mean?
1) Apple can raise a stink later?
or
2) Apple can't raise a stink?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 10:01 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 10:03 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 10:04 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

HTC-Apple Stipulation Filed with Del. Court Contradicts FOSSPatents on Terms of Agreement ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 10:05 PM EST

Quote: I have found, in a place where few people look for this kind of information, a heavily-redacted (more than 90% of the content is blacked out) public version of the Apple- HTC license agreement that was signed and...

Courts read the media too...

By using the media; all this is part of there (Apple) litigation strategy to blind-side the courts remember that's how Apple started this case, by getting the whole media to say Samsung slavishly copy (and that made Samsung upset). And it's the same again, FM play the same dirty card again and that's why HTC was upset when they came out and say all these analyse were totally all wrong, so you can now see that these are people who do not play clean, trust them at your own peril.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oddity regarding this round of ForProfitPatents commentary
Authored by: JonCB on Thursday, November 22 2012 @ 10:43 PM EST
When Florian makes a comment, I generally assume it's biased
towards Android being more screwed than is actually true. This
particular case of being plain wrong however seems, on the
face, to mean Android(i.e. HTC here) is more vulnerable to
lawsuit than Florian's comment suggests.

This is probably well explained by receiving an early version
of the document. That does leave us with the question of where
he got his version from.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm shocked, shocked!!!
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, November 23 2012 @ 02:48 AM EST
Finally, I thought PJ had made a Star Trek allusion... and it turns out to be
some local reality TV show!

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

HTC-Apple Stipulation Filed with Del. Court Contradicts FOSSPatents on Terms of Agreement ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 23 2012 @ 03:30 AM EST
forian muller guy is <b> paid by Oracle, Apple and Microsoft. He has been

blogging ant-Google for years. He was so wrong with Oracle-Google case -
Oracle is paying Google their legal fee where muller guy claimed Oracle would
win billions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ignore him then!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 05:59 AM EST
Why give FOSSPatents the credit of acknowledge him by making
such an article? It is like watching children fight.

This article would have been better without any references to
FOSSPatents at all. Tell the news instead of telling that
somebody else got the news wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is no need to speculate about Mueller's financial ties
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 12:49 AM EST
Several comments wonder about FOSS Patents'/Florian Mueller's financial ties and
suggest, rightly, that we should follow the money. It is a matter of public
record that he has been a paid "consultant" for Oracle and Microsoft.
His Oracle work, at least, was done through Morrison & Foerster, the law
firm that represents not only Oracle in its disasterous copyright suit against
Google, but also Apple in its patent litigation against Samsung. While his
corporate sponsors and Mueller have tried to suggest that somehow his payments
are not directly for writing his blog, the reality is that he is not and cannot
be objective because he is on these companies' payrolls and he is beholden to a
law firm that represents Apple. And the lack of objectivity is exactly what
explains why Mueller is so frequently wrong -- and why it undoubtedly does not
matter to him. His financial incentives are to cheerlead, plain and simple,
undoubtedly in the hopes that he can influence the media, public opinion and
courts. This is also why the word about FOSS Patents must be raised as often
and broadly as possible. It may eventually deter the media from using him as a
supposedly reputable source -- which he is not.

Confirmation of these points can be found in many sources, including:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19303290

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/17/3250148/oracle-tells-court-patent-blogger-flor
ian-mueller-is-a-consultant

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57495640-93/oracle-names-bloggers-others-it-pai
d-to-comment-on-google-trial/

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds