|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 08:10 AM EST |
I agree that the Judge made a fundamental mistake at the beginning by
denying Motorola injunctive relief but I was not seeking sympathy for the
judge. All I was trying to highlight was the sense he had in describing this
action as hubris and divorced from reality. This is where the patent disputes
have taken us: away from reality. I feel the courts, especially after Posner,
are coming to realise that the law and the courts are being abused by
patent litigants without any consideration of the public or consumer. If this
sort of statement can be expressed in Microsoft's backyard by a judge tied
up by his own errors there is hope that future courts are going to be
dismissive of actions which are solely designed to avoid fair competition.
His statement implies that the courts have had enough - well that is my
hope![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FreeChief on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 11:03 AM EST |
the patent-holder would proceed to get an injunction and bar the
infringer from selling
and
resolves the negotiation
problem neatly without having to involve the courts,
I don't
understand. Does the patent-holder get an injunction from a vending-machine?
Wallmart? Mail order from amazon.com?
I am pretty sure that the current
situation is that you have to go to court to get an injunction.
Are you
advocating that getting an injunction should be so trivial that the court need
not get involved? That any patent-holder should be able to get an injunction
just by asking, without any long court proceedings to determine whether the
patent is valid and actually infringed by the accused
product?
— Programmer in Chief
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
