decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Judge Koh Grants HTC's Redactions; Denies Samsung's Motion to File Supplement Expert Declaration~pj | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
informed opinions?
Authored by: sumzero on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:46 AM EST
you, certainly, are of the opinion that your opinions are
informed. i disagree. perhaps you are accustomed to having
your words treated with deference in the real world, but here
we require that you substantiate those words with verifiable
facts. when asked, you have refused to do so.

everything else is just pounding on the table.

48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

alan j perlis

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Giving you the benefit of doubt - a few points
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:53 AM EST

I took the time and bother to articulate the argument, with case citations, and that remains the one comment that received no responses.
I will go back and review that - eventually. You have my curiosity one last time.

Let's say someone applies for your services and you agree. The first three "facts" the person presents to you, you quickly discover are lies. Do you continue to trust the person at the same level as when you initially hired them? Or did your trust factor just drop? Just something to think about while you ponder whether or not the original request for citations was really so difficult to follow up on.

But the basic logic of Posner's opinion (which I hope would control in the future) is that the threat of an injunction allows for rent seeking on the part of SEP holders, something that all consumers should be against.
I am absolutely against rent seeking when it comes to patents that should have not been granted. However, I don't view such a threat from SEP holders any differently then any software patent holder. As a software developer - I can emphatically tell you software should not be patent protectable at all!
However, as you can see from my original comment that started the thread, I also think you do a disservice at times in explaining the *context* of the documents you post to the techies here. For example, in civil litigation procedure matters a great deal. As you should be aware, the possibility that Samsung would get the instant motion accepted by the court was almost zero.
I personally don't think P.J. has done us a disservice. Having been coming here for 10 years, P.J. has done quite well in explaining a lot of things including procedure. While she voiced her disappointment on a number of things such as Samsung's request for the supplemental declaration I personally was not surprised or disappointed. I was not due to the history we've covered and I didn't expect Samsung to have much chance at all unless their filing was within the time period usually allotted such things. So has she done a disservice when she has taught us much, we can hold our own opinions and she can voice her disappointment without us being disappointed in her? I dun think so! I'm one of those that's proud of what P.J. has taught and she - like every other human - has the right to her opinion without being denounced for it. Just as you do!
Of course, the fact that I posted my opinion about what I think regarding the aggressive use of SEPs has made several people here conjure dark theories about my motivations.
It's not the fact you posted your opinion that has had people "conjure dark theories". It's the fact you presented your opinion as already established fact which is new to some of us and when we requested citations so we had a starting point for a quick verification check and then we could proceed with the rest of the research as peeked our interests you refused!

On that point: did you know if someone posts "I have nothing to cite for this, it's just my gut feel" they will end up with far more respect and consideration of their position then if someone presents something as established fact then refuses to back that with citations? We do recognize that it's ok for educated people to disagree on something after "all evidence has been presented". Something to be aware of.

I only brought that up because I do have a concern about SEPs moving forward. Many people here dismiss the concern because, in their minds, Apple and others are "bad actors" and it's all fair game. That's okay, I guess. But this is (in patents terms) a relatively novel litigation theory.
So given you're a Lawyer - possibly a practicing attorney that argues in Court - would you say Apple's litigation theory that they could ask a Court to set what appropriate FRAND terms are and then tell the Court that they would not accept the Courts terms if they were not $1 or less per device relatively novel?

Exceptional circumstances of attack usually ends up with the entities defending themselves in exceptional ways.

If you accept the theory propounded in the recent litigation (the one bullet theory), then SEPs (with their monopoly power) are, in fact, more valuable.
The only thing I accept with regards a standard essential patent vs a patent on "rectangle with rounded corners" is if the patent is required for the device to function at all - yes, it's more valuable then a patent not required for the device to function.

One last thought: you keep posting that we are of a group mind of some type. That we have per-conceived notions of what should be and so paint the picture we want. I wonder if you have projected your own pre-conceptions of Groklaw regulars on to us.

You have explained your position and how you viewed our responses. I have explained why I viewed my responses to your posts as I have and how you could go about avoiding the misunderstandings.

We're all civilized here - and we're willing to accept your opinion even if it's different then ours. But we can't accept your opinion when you present your opinion in such a way as to make it established fact and then refuse to back it. This is not an unreasonable position to take given all the people in society willing to spread misinformation.

I certainly hope that while I review the post you mentioned where you provided the cites - you consider the points identified here.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Koh Grants HTC's Redactions; Denies Samsung's Motion to File Supplement Expert Declaration~pj
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM EST

you might want to think about your tolerance for informed dissenting opinions.

The problem is, how do we distinguish between you and a common troll? Now that is a really big problem! I, and probably many others here, find it really hard to believe that any well informed individual does not "understand" what is really going on...

We have Microsoft who thinks nothing of using mafioso tactics to maintain dominance in this world. We see them entering the device market with smart phones and tablets that don't measure up to the expectations of the market.

Microsoft has no hope of competing with their current generation of devices. So what do they do? Fall back on their tried and proven mafioso tactics. They launch a whisper campaign to disparage Google. They employ astro turfing, using people who's comments are indistinguishable from your comments, to post in forums across the internet.

Microsoft send out press releases from their lawyers to confuse the issues. They have a bevy of reporters in their pockets to spread their propaganda.

They gather up allies to attack Google's successful Search business. They employ their lobbyists and considerable clout in Washington to get the FTC to investigate Google for anticompetitive behaviour. This is a whole topic in itself, but any well informed person would consider it a baseless accusation. (Google is not a monopoly. They only have 67% of the search market. Their search service is free. Nobody has a dime invested in it. The competition is just a mouse click away. etc, etc)

Microsoft launch a campaign to harass and shakedown Android OEMs over patents, employing troll techniques, to make it appear that every Android OEM is obliged to pay a tax to Microsoft.

We know from the only instance where the details became public (Barns & Noble), these are low quality software patents. It appears it is cheaper for these OEMs to sign an agreement with Microsoft that allows Microsoft to imply they are paying a tax rather than fight back in court.

On the Apple side, we have a company that has vowed to "wage thermonuclear war" against Android. They are using a broken patent system in this endeavour to attack Android.

Meanwhile, speaking of Android - for the first time in history we have what is fast becoming a universal platform, based on Free & Open Source. The significance of this for all of humanity, who suffered for decades under Microsoft's domination, cannot be understated.

We have the "Forces of Darkness", as we are found of calling them, Apple & Microsoft, ganged up against Android.

Both these companies are doing everything they can, using dirty tactics to get Android kicked out of the market.

Then when Google, Motorola, or Samsung fight back, it is advantageous to both Apple & Microsoft to point their fingers at the use of FRAND patents. If they can undermine the power of those FRAND patents, they can emasculate Google/Android.

Of course we worry about patents here. We have dedicated several discussion to the issue. FRAND patents make us nervous too, but now is not the time to worry about them, when there are much bigger issues at stake. To focus on FRAND patents at this moment would be like kicking Google's legs out from under them.

It is hard for me to understand how anybody could not "care who "wins" the Apple/Samsung fight".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why you failed
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST

You have failed here because you have not written to your audience. I am surprised that a person with your level of education would not know that writing to your audience is the first principle of writing to convince.

You have repeatedly asked for citations. I took the time and bother to articulate the argument, with case citations, and that remains the one comment that received no responses.

A case citation is next to useless without a link.

Let me explain. Most of us here are not lawyers. None of us non-lawyers has a mob of clerks to look up cases on Pacer and summarize them.

For example, you suggest I should study Judge Posner's ruling to understand one of your points. You don't provide a link or even a hint (which case?) as to where I might find it. You are in effect asking me to burn an indeterminate amount of time to support your point. Why should I do that?

And, by the way, I want to read the source material. I have noticed that lawyers sometimes misrepresent documents.

You made it hard to agree with you. Are you truly surprised that no one does? Especially when, after all the BS is boiled away, your point seems to be that Apple should be able to seek an injunction over its rounded corners patent while Samsung should not be able to seek an injunction over its FRAND patent.

And your tone didn't help, either. You have repeatedly said, in various ways, 'How could someone as smart as you claim to be make such dumb statements? You must not be that smart.'

As to your nonsense about confirmation bias: it is either lawyerly posturing or a symptom of arrogance. In either case, save it for you next closing argument. It was wasted here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )