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
Justice has certainly not been SEEN to be done | 173 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:30 AM EST
Please summarize in the title if possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:32 AM EST
Linkys too please, for posterity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:34 AM EST
Irrelevant conversations go here...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:35 AM EST
For anyone working on these documents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surprise Surprise... NOT. Seattle Judge Grants MS Motion, Bans Injunctions for Motorola's RAND Patents ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:55 AM EST
If this argument is valid, then shouldn't the same argument apply to most of
Apple's or Nokia's injunctions against other manufacturers for supposedly
violating their patents? :p

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surprise Surprise... NOT. Seattle Judge Grants MS Motion, Bans Injunctions for Motorola's RAND Patents ~pj
Authored by: nslm on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 02:02 AM EST
The thing that strikes me as most interesting is that the judge has
effectively ruled that the US rules with regards when injunctive relief is
appropriate trump those of another sovereign nation. In Germany the
judge ruled that the requirements had been met...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Vote for Groklaw Thread
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 02:02 AM EST
216 votes!

Wills & Trusts is at 176. Didn't check the rest, but I think we are still winning.

http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100

---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg 100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 225 so far! - Authored by: ilde on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 11:58 AM EST
  • Now its - Authored by: DBLR on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 09:57 AM EST
Justice has certainly not been SEEN to be done
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 02:08 AM EST
I thought that was supposed to be important? In fact what we see is a stitched
up judgement with a friendly judge prepared to bend the laqw until it breaks and
claim jurisdiction over what happens in Germany.

When this gets overturned on appeal will there be any comeback? Just how do they
go about spanking naughty judges these days? And does the spanking happen
publicly or is it all done behind closed doors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The only question is...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 03:04 AM EST

...was Microsoft handing this judge his payoff before, during or after the
ruling? (Or at all three times?)

Can you say "biased"?

"Justice" truly goes to the highest bidder in the United States.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perverse Reverse Logic
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 03:29 AM EST
Standards essential patents tend to be those of substance. Standards
bodies don't waste their time with fluffy bouncy screens and swipe
gestures. They adopt things that are truly innovative and unique that the
world cannot live without.

It now seems that if you hold such a worthwhile and innovative patent, it is
worthless as some overbearing bully can find a friendly judge to render the
thing virtually useless. It now seems that only the frivilous ones are worthy
of legal protection.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Actually,
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 05:15 AM EST
apart from the "holds for everything in every jurisdiction" angle, this is in line with Posner's celebrated throwing out the Apple/Motorola Mobility case because of failure to show permanent damage warranting an injunction.

It tells the parties to do their negotiations off-court. Of course, what also is different from Posner here is that the case was exactly initiated by Microsoft because Microsoft was not interested in doing negotiations.

My personal feeling on this is that Microsoft should be ordered to pay an average rate (determined by court experts through examination of existing prices) plus 30%. This will make sure that people will travel to the court only when indeed discriminatory licensing fees are involved.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Calm down, sheesh.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 06:04 AM EST
Maybe I'm missing something here but the Judge's logic seems
to be exactly that which we hope will prevail in Apple v
Samsung.

If HTC are licencing Patents that Apple claim it never
licences then they can't have an injunction because money
can 'make them whole'.

Nobody likes Microsoft and we want to see Motorola spank
them in court but we all need to take a step back and
remember that we want to see the law fairly and equitably
applied.

So far everything this Judge has said has seemed pretty
reasonable and sensible and the text above could easily read
as him setting Microsoft up for a damn good hiding down the
road.

Nothing I've read so far precludes him saying 'Motorola's
opening offer is reasonable. It is what they offer other
licensees and to compel them to offer Microsoft something
different would be discriminatory to the rest of the market.
You've got 6 months to enter into good faith negotiations at
the end of which if Microsoft still don't have a valid
licence I will revisit the injunction idea.'

That phrase 'non-discriminatory' should cut both ways.
Nobody gets the shaft and nobody gets cut a special deal.
We all have to play on a roughly level playing field.


Crizh

[ Reply to This | # ]

Money WILL mend everything
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 07:16 AM EST
So an injunction is not necessary. ASSUMING Microsoft actually negotiate and pay
up. So I'm not at all sure that "the fix is in" - the Judge may be
wising up to MS.

This ruling still leaves wide open the possibility that the Judge could rule
"2.25% is FRAND. MS you'd better pay up or I'll advise Moto to ask for an
injunction, as refusal to pay is a change in circumstances".

Okay, I don't think refusal to pay is a change, but the judge is assuming MS are
happy to pay up ... more fool him ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surprise Surprise - Check the judge's bank accounts
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 09:54 AM EST
Matter of money, not law...

US Judge has no jurisdiction over EU verdict and penalties from said verdict.

Too bad we have such dirty rotten people acting as judges these days.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't he know not ideas?
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 01:34 PM EST
Kappos says, "great algorithmic ideas worthy of protection"

In the first few paragraphs the head of the patent crime
gang states that ideas should be patentable, the exact
opposite of the legislation drafted by Congress. It is the
application of the idea that is patented, not the idea
itself. That is why hardware manufacturers can find ways
around patents. No wonder they are lost, their leader
doesn't know where he is!


[ Reply to This | # ]

Now you see why M$ brushed off standards
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 02:39 PM EST
The logic here is that by agreeing to be part of a standard (SEP), Motorola has
given up their right to injunctive relief.

But remember, while both M$ and Apple are screaming about Moto/Google SEP
patents, their own patents are NOT SEP, and therefore, presumably, this logic
does not apply.

So Moto is barred from an injunction, but M$ is not. Any bets on what comes
next? A level playing field is not in M$ plans.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This would make sense for prelimiinary injunctions
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 03:38 PM EST
I've long taken the position (as has Groklaw, IIRC) that a patent troll should
not be able to get a preliminary injunction (the key word being
"preliminary") against an (alleged) infringer, as someone who is not
practicing the patent (and potentially competing against the infringer) is not
suffering any harm that can't be cured by damages. An argument can be made the
same ought to apply to RAND patents--that a RAND licenser is forgoing some level
of exclusivity, including the right to claim harm from losing market share to a
competing product.

The courts (unfortunately) have held otherwise in the case of trolls--taking the
position, it seems, that not being able to hold the other party over a barrel
(by blocking shipment of an allegedly-infringing product), itself constitutes
irreparable harm. (IIRC, it was the case that seriously damaged RIM several
years ago--the troll was granted a PI, and able to extract an unfair settlement
out of RIM, prior to the patent office throwing out the patent; RIM raised the
issue and was denied by the court).

That said, a consistent position on when injunctive relief is available would be
nice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am very concerned
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 02:15 AM EST
The British Government is a member of the ITU that sets international
communications standards and the United Nations which sets international legal
standards.

I am concerned that the UK has agreed a contract with the US under which the US
can invade the Isle of Wight for a nominal sum of a couple of cents.

The UK cannot prove irreparable harm and serve an injunction on the US because
the Americans can always go home.

Of course, any ruling would be sui generis. If the US invaded the Falklands that
would be quite different, legally. There would be, how do you say it?, an
injunctive action.

PS: Microsoft is not a professional engineer. It is not permitted to call itself
a Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. It is only
allowed to propose professional engineers to contribute to the IEEE's technical
Knowledge Groups and standards working groups. Frankly, I would not join such a
group that would have me or Steve Balmer in it.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

As always, the incombent monopolists (Microsoft and Apple) are protected from 'harm'
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 08:14 AM EST
As a UK citizen, it seems that the USA protects its own 'prized brands' from being disadvantaged in any way in the world wide market over up-and-coming competitors. After all we could not possibly have a fair 'playing field' - that's what the US patent office is there to prevent (aka fair competition)!

In addition, international treaties mean that USA law trumps local law (in non-USA countries) so long as those countries want to roll over and play dead. That is why (IMHO) Apple has been able to battle continuously in an anti-competitive way against Samsung (which is after all NOT an American company).

Is this a cynical view? Certainly - and not entirely valid but it is becoming the view of many people (in many cases the general public) OUTSIDE the USA. The behaviour of large American companies outside the USA has not helped either.

---
Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X

[ 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 )