|
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:30 AM EST |
Please summarize in the title if possible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:32 AM EST |
Linkys too please, for posterity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple files patent for true wireless charging technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 02:17 AM EST
- Apple files patent for true wireless charging technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 04:05 AM EST
- Apple files patent for hot air - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 04:14 AM EST
- Watch the language! - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 02:22 AM EST
- Ouch! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 06:27 AM EST
- Apple sits on its thumb for three years - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 05:10 AM EST
- 1894 Nikola Tesla - how did Apple get this patent? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 09:23 AM EST
- Apple files patent for true wireless charging technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 02:16 PM EST
- Apple files patent for true wireless charging technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 04:28 PM EST
- Prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 10:59 PM EST
- Not really - Authored by: kg on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 01:29 AM EST
- Oh, I see! - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 02:42 AM EST
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 04:12 AM EST
- Oh, I see! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:25 AM EST
- Not really - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 08:29 AM EST
- Not really - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Apple files patent for true wireless charging technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 03:26 PM EST
- Suprise Suprise SCOTUS grants cert in Myriad - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 03:50 AM EST
- Dell Laptop Is $70 Cheaper with Ubuntu Linux - Authored by: squib on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 08:16 AM EST
- Apple: We didn't know about Hogan - Authored by: Doghouse on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 03:08 PM EST
- Mediator Joins Contentious Effort to Add a ‘Do Not Track’ Option to Web Browsing (link to PDF) - Authored by: kg on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 01:05 AM EST
- Supreme Court to decide if human genes patentable - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 10:11 AM EST
|
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:34 AM EST |
Irrelevant conversations go here... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: songmaster on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:35 AM EST |
For anyone working on these documents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|