|
|
|
| Authored by: Charles888 on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
Seems like an overly tortured logic.
I am surprised the 9th went along
with it. Since when can't US
complies pursue legal remedies in
foreign jurisdictions? Both these
companies have German subsidies
engaging in German business and must
follow German laws.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
Apparently, if you're Apple or Microsoft, you have <i>carte
blanche</i> to steal whatever you want, whenever you want,
wherever you want. I'm fed up with so-called "justice" in
this country. Now, apparently you can't even get justice in
another country without having it overturned by the
prostitute judges in the United States. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, September 29 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT |
The United States has ruled that this finding is illegal.
The Supreme
Court in Microsoft v. AT&T:The presumption that United States
law governs domestically but does not rule the world applies with particular
force in patent law.
The traditional understanding that our patent law
“operate[s] only domestically and d[oes] not extend to foreign activities,”, is
embedded in the Patent Act itself,
which provides that a patent confers
exclusive rights in an
invention within the United States. 35 U. S. C.
§154(a)(1)
(patentee’s rights over invention apply to manufacture,
use, or sale
“throughout the United States” and to importation “into the United States”). See
Deepsouth, (“Our patent system makes no claim to extraterritorial effect”; our
legislation “d[oes] not, and [was] not
intended to, operate beyond the limits of
the United
States, and we correspondingly reject the claims of others
to such
control over our markets.”.
As a principle of general application,
moreover, we have
stated that courts should “assume that legislators
take
account of the legitimate sovereign interests of other
nations when they
write American laws.”. Thus, the United States accurately conveyed in this case:
“Foreign conduct is [generally] the domain of foreign law,” and in the area here
involved, in particular, foreign law “may embody different policy judgments
about the relative rights of inventors, competitors, and the public in patented
inventions.” Brief for United States as
Amicus Curiae 28.
That
Amicus Curiae was written by the United States Government . This court can only
ignore the direct instructions of the US Government, the letter of the law and
the opinion of the Supreme Court if they are prepared to 'correspondingly
[accept] the claims of others
to such control over our markets'.
I
look forward to the German court extending the injunction on the XBox to the
United States of
America.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 29 2012 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
I'd just implement the ban despite Motorola not being able
to ask for it.
Either that, or just start issuing rulings on US domestic
issues.
This is quite ridiculous, and I can't see how the Germans
can let this stand.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
