Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Slams Apple-Motorola Suit As 'Business Strategy'

timothy posted about a year ago | from the stating-the-obvious dept.

The Courts 140

jfruh writes "Faced with an Apple vs. Motorola lawsuit that involves 180 claims and counterclaims across 12 patents, a judge in Florida has thrown up his hands and accused both companies of acting in bad faith. Claiming the parties' were engaged in 'obstreperous and cantankerous conduct', he said that the lawsuit was part of 'a business strategy that appears to have no end.'"

cancel ×

140 comments

Good (5, Funny)

drinkydoh (2658743) | about a year ago | (#43425297)

Fighting is stupid. You should just concentrate on making a great product, just like Apple does. Note that, Motorola/Google, and stop fighting.

Re:Good (1)

sudden.zero (981475) | about a year ago | (#43425389)

I hope my sarcasm radar is just off today and you are not serious. :P

Re:Good (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year ago | (#43425449)

Or he could mean that moto/google should just give up and let apple have it all, lol

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425591)

Noting his posting time is exactly same as article posting time, his lack of subscriber status to explain this and his comment history it's probably the same pro-MS/anti-Google troll/shill that was here several months ago.

Never got whether he's really that stupid or does he simply get a kick out of this.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425803)

you forgot to put pro-assad

Re:Good (1)

umghhh (965931) | about a year ago | (#43427635)

neee - probably a spy for NK.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425939)

Note to everyone who hasn't RTFA: There is no page two, even though there's a link to page two. It's not a bad article but ending it on page 1 with a link to page two is shoddy as hell and whoever owns that site should be bitch slapped.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425405)

The lawsuit is Apple vs. Motorola, not Motorola vs. Google. Seriously, even reading the summary would have told you that.

Re:Good (2, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43425615)

Who owns Motorola Mobility? Google does! Seriously, even reading the comment you're replying to would have told you he was making a sarcastic remark telling Motorola and its owner, Google, to be more like the other litigant, Apple.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426407)

are you stupid or something?

better: the judge places the case on ice (2)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#43427553)

a judge can reassign his caseload however he wants until retirement in many jurisdictions, and in all of them if the head of judicial assignments also thinks it's noise. it is far more common to dismiss for frivolity or abuse of the system. but then the t1t vs. tat lawsuits pop up somewhere else. if a Federal judge ices the case, it's not going to bite anybody.

Re:Good (1)

maharvey (785540) | about a year ago | (#43427817)

Yes, and Apple, you should stop fighting with Motorola/Google, just because they are making a great product that is just like yours.

Re:Good (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43427977)

And they should ALL be kissing Palm's ass because they were there first!

fuck guys how old is the saying "standing on the shoulders of giants" anyway? the entire history of tech is one guy ripping somebody else off and doing it better, frankly that scene in Pirates of Silicon Valley could have described ALL of the electronics industry, because there Jobs was bitching about Gates doing the same damned thing he did which was rip off Xerox. they ALL do it, they ALL see an idea somebody else had and make a better spin on it, its ALL the same shtick folks.

Referee hates players for participating in game (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425399)

He is entirely correct. But this is what the US patent and court system has brought things to. There is no substantial downside to patent litigation for companies of this size. Even if you lose, you win, because you've forced your competitor through the legal defense ordeal.

Re:Referee hates players for participating in game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425551)

I don't see why this should be the litigant's problem. The government has decided to massively regulate an extremely complex industry by rewarding some players with monopolies. The consequences of sorting out the resulting mess should be on the government, not the industry. Blaming these companies for the results of a clearly malfunctioning patent system is wrong. This case is complex, because patents are inherently complex. Tough luck if that makes it hard for the judge. He should be complaining to congress and the patent office for creating this mess in the first place.

Re:Referee hates players for participating in game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425799)

Care to name these monopolies? I'm sensing that you're calling something a monopoly that isn't a legal monopoly. Not the the legal definition has ever stopped most Slashtards from throwing around terms that don't mean what they think they mean.
 
Answer me now or Medusa will haunt your dreams tonight.

Re:Referee hates players for participating in game (4, Informative)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#43426109)

Patents and Copyright are Government granted temporary monopoly's over that which has been patented or is under copyright.
Was originally granted to spur more creation of these things to enrich the public domain.
Problem is the temporary part has been massively subverted. Now almost nothing ever makes it into the public domain.

Re:Referee hates players for participating in game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426657)

Patents and Copyright are Government granted temporary monopoly's over that which has been patented or is under copyright. Was originally granted to spur more creation of these things to enrich the public domain. Problem is the temporary part has been massively subverted. Now almost nothing ever makes it into the public domain.

The system is badly broken, but at least patents still expire.

Re:Referee hates players for participating in game (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#43427531)

Patents and copyrights have different rules, and different issues. The never-expiring issue is copyrights; the problem with patents is the massive increase in scope, and lowering of the bar, of what can be patented, so that now, even obvious and trivial modifications result in being granted a monopoly.

Hate the players and the Game (2, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43425755)

He is entirely correct.

Except this game(sic) as you put it did not exist [in the mobile sphere], everyone got along and licensed their patents to each other through FRAND, and them Steve Jobs with a few weak obvious interface patents and a few basic shape design patents...and a first out of gate [apart from that other phone] product, ever since then its been Apple patent raping one end of the phone industry to get the to sell Windows Phones [Seriously WTF?] to Microsoft patent raping them at the other to get them to License Windows Phone [and put a little in Ballmers retirement fund]...Lets call it what it is a misuse of Legal system through patents by companies who cannot compete through innovation [While slipping a few thousand into group troll companies].

Until (0, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43427005)

everyone got along and licensed their patents to each other through FRAND ...right up until Apple came along and started making so much money that companies that had licensed out patents at reasonable terms to everyone else demanded Apple pay far more. Thus making a mockery of FRAND.

Re:Until (2)

scot4875 (542869) | about a year ago | (#43428091)

That's the completely self-serving, Apple-zealot version of the story, yes.

--Jeremy

Re:Referee hates players for participating in game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426113)

That is exactly right, and it has become the business as usual for many corporations and government agencies. they have started using the legal system as a weapon against others, mainly individuals. And the courts are responsible for allowing it to get to that point.

No sir (4, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#43425427)

Is he implying that Apple's business strategy is somehow tied into massive, pervasive, and obvious patent trolling? No sir, simply won't buy it. Everyone knows they invented rounded corners.

Re:No sir (0, Troll)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about a year ago | (#43425583)

No, I believe he's implying that Apple AND GOOGLE are using lawsuits as a business strategy against each other.

Re:No sir (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43426335)

Sure he did, but one of them is just reacting to the other.

Re:No sir (2)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about a year ago | (#43427349)

Re:No sir (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43427483)

Nah. Google is reacting to Apple's several lawsuits against Android.

Re:No sir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425601)

Hurr durr Google is my friend.

Re:No sir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425603)

Ah, the disingenuous statements continue about 'rounded corners', or are you truly in denial of the facts?

Re:No sir (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year ago | (#43426161)

Yeah, everybody forgets about the part about colored icons displaced in a grid!

Re:No sir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426269)

Ah, the disingenuous statements continue about 'rounded corners', or are you truly in denial of the facts?

FALSE! Apple did sue Samsung for ornamental design, including rounded corners on the device itself, and the icons on the screen. Read up on Apple's

  • 087 patent- ornamental design of iphone,
  • 677 patent - iPhone design rectangle with rounded corners, and
  • 305 patent - ornamental design of a display screen using grid of icons and rounded corners.

Re:No sir (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year ago | (#43425925)

Apparently the writing on the wall isn't bright enough.

I would have thought (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425455)

that the judge blurting out what is obvious to anyone following the case is a clear violation of protocol.

Judge determines patent system flawed. (2)

mikeulus (1307315) | about a year ago | (#43425459)

Figures tongue lashings and pointy fingers should patch this issue right up.

Re:Judge determines patent system flawed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425655)

Let's get a visual dramatization of the judge throwing his hands up from the image boards.

And? (5, Insightful)

spyke252 (2679761) | about a year ago | (#43425485)

Until we see punishment for such business practices, they'll continue to be profitable. As long as they're profitable, companies will continue to use such business practices. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that judges are also seeing the idiocy that certain policies seem to lead to, but given how these companies sometimes even blatantly disregard the courts... They'll just find a different patent and sue in a different court system until they get their money back.

Re:And? (1)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year ago | (#43426409)

Institutionalized Gambling Addiction?

Re:And? (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43426507)

Until we see punishment for such business practices, they'll continue to be profitable.

The submitter editorialized a bit in using the words "bad faith".
If the judge had actually declared that there was bad faith, there are appropriate sanctions, including attorneys fees and dismissal/winning the case.

Motorola? (5, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year ago | (#43425509)

I can't see how Motorola's using the lawsuit as a business strategy. They didn't file it, they don't want to be in court, and they have no choice about showing up or about what claims they have to defend against. I'm getting more and more annoyed at judges who get mad at defendants for having the temerity to stand up and defend themselves against the claims the plaintiff has made. If their defenses are meritless, then just rule so and be done with it. If they aren't meritless, then the blame for any complexity lies with the party making the claims, not the defense.

Re:Motorola? (1, Insightful)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about a year ago | (#43425699)

I can't see how Motorola's using the lawsuit as a business strategy. They didn't file it, they don't want to be in court, and they have no choice about showing up or about what claims they have to defend against. I'm getting more and more annoyed at judges who get mad at defendants for having the temerity to stand up and defend themselves against the claims the plaintiff has made. If their defenses are meritless, then just rule so and be done with it. If they aren't meritless, then the blame for any complexity lies with the party making the claims, not the defense.

Agreed. A defendant can either choose to do nothing but repel the arguments, or use the existing lawsuit to bring charges of their own in hopes of at least reducing the damages if not removing them entirely and getting paid instead. The blame must lay with the originator, in this case Apple.

Re:Motorola? (3, Informative)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43425855)

The blame must lay with the originator, in this case Apple.

From the article: "The lawsuit was filed by Motorola in January last year..."

It's only one page, and does not take long to read.

Re:Motorola? (3, Informative)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about a year ago | (#43426191)

The blame must lay with the originator, in this case Apple.

From the article: "The lawsuit was filed by Motorola in January last year..."

It's only one page, and does not take long to read.

The title of the action is "Apple v. Motorola", which means that Apple is the one who file the first lawsuit in the action; per protocol it's Plaintfiff v. Defendant. Motorola may have filed what is left, but only after Apple already filed.

And while TFA doesn't specially mention the official name of the suit, everyone tracked by Groklaw that I am aware of has Apple listed first.

Re:Motorola? (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year ago | (#43426609)

No, the title of the action is Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc. [groklaw.net] (warning: PDF), case 1:12-cv-20271-WJZ

Re:Motorola? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43427079)

If it were a differing action, I'd buy the line- but a counter-suit's done up that way. This is merely the riposte to Apple's initial thrust to use a fencing term.

Re:Motorola? (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year ago | (#43426247)

You're saying that like the whole Apple-Moto spat started in January last year... It's been going on for way longer than that, and it's an unending war of suit and countersuit which originated from Apple's bullying.

Re:Motorola? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43426823)

I'm saying it as a statement of well documented fact. Facts are always a good place to start a discussion. I don't see why you find that controversial.

Observation (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43427035)

Apple haters start by discarding facts, and then work from the premise that anything left is proof of Apple being evil.

Just thought I'd help understand the mindset you are facing.

Re:Motorola? (2)

drinkydoh (2658743) | about a year ago | (#43425905)

The blame must lay with the originator, in this case Apple.

It's actually Motorola that sued.

Re:Motorola? (5, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43425747)

I can't see how Motorola's using the lawsuit as a business strategy. They didn't file it, they don't want to be in court, and they have no choice about showing up or about what claims they have to defend against. I'm getting more and more annoyed at judges who get mad at defendants for having the temerity to stand up and defend themselves against the claims the plaintiff has made. If their defenses are meritless, then just rule so and be done with it. If they aren't meritless, then the blame for any complexity lies with the party making the claims, not the defense.

The summary is wrong.

It's Motorola Mobility v. Apple, not Apple v. Motorola Mobility.

Motorola filed a lawsuit against Apple over patent violations in 2010, and expanded it in 2011 (with Google's permission as the Motorola-Google acquisition happened in the meantime) over more patents. Apple then charged Motorola (then) with patent violations as well.

  Motorola Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc., 12cv20271, U.S. District Court for the District of Florida (Miami)

Re:Motorola? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425823)

Don't let your facts get in the way of a good anti-Apple tirade. This is Slashdot!!

Re:Motorola? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426183)

I'd agree, if Apple wasn't always suing Motorola. They're both guilty in this practice, and anyone defending either of them is either part of this business strategy, or a fool.

Re:Motorola? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425839)

This needs more upvotes. Actually, it needs to be pinned to the summary.

My favorite line from the judge:

"If the parties cannot make this case manageable, the court forewarns them that it intends to stay the litigation while the Markman issues are pending and issue a decision as expeditiously as the parties deserve,"

Re:Motorola? (5, Informative)

Moses48 (1849872) | about a year ago | (#43426359)

Look here for the timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars [wikipedia.org]
This list just shows who started what:
Nokia sues apple, apple counters, and nokia counters, etc.
Apple sues HTC, counters, etc
(HTC gives royalties to microsoft... WTF?)
S3 sues Apple
Oracle sues google, oracle fails!
Microsoft sues Motorolla, countered etc.
Motorolla sues Apple, countered etc.
Microsoft sues Barnes and Nobles
Apple sues Samsung, countered
Microsoft grabs more royalties from those without patent arsenal (le sigh)

And that is a little rundown of where we are at.

But Apple sued over BS design patents (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#43427105)

Patent lawsuits are not *always* bullshit. Some lawsuits are completely legitamite.

If Apple was having real technology stolen from them, I would applaud Apple taking appropriate steps to protect technology that Apple actually invented.

FYI: Apple did not invent rounded corners.

Re:But Apple sued over BS design patents (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43427677)

": Apple did not invent rounded corners."
They where the foist to use it in a tablet. The type of patent they got for that is to prevent other people from making a device that looks the same to ride off Apple coat tails.
granted, there shouldn't be design patetnt, their should be design 'trademarks'.

Re:But Apple sued over BS design patents (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43428053)

Patent lawsuits are not *always* bullshit. Some lawsuits are completely legitamite.

Ni! I say, Ni at you! Patent lawsuits are *always* bullshit. There are no Geniuses. There are only "individuals ordinarily skilled in the art". Edison did not invent the light bulb, he improved it with argon. Tesla did not invent A/C. Bell did not invent the Telephone. You have no Geniuses. That is wool in your eyes.

Let me tell you how patents are made. An individual ordinarily skilled in the arts, charged with creating solutions to problems as a requirement of their very employment, goes about their days coming up with a solution to the problems at hand. They all do. Everywhere. Once a week or month or year (if you're lucky), a patent attorney is paid to make rounds at the company. This lawman goes round and asks, "Have you created anything that you consider clever since our last meet?" These rank and file employees are awarded bonuses for any idea that gets approved as a patent, so ANY little idea they have that they consider clever they submit.

Now, we are all living in the same culture at the same time. There are many companies and many workers finding solutions to the same sorts of problems. So, naturally, anything you think is clever has been thought of, or will VERY SHORTLY be thought of, by someone else. You're not a fucking genius. If you were you wouldn't be working for that corporation... see? Geniuses don't exist.

The patent and trade office is thus SWAMPED with patent filings. They try to throw out the most obvious ones, but the thing is: There Is No Test For Obviousness even though patents are required not to be so. Instead they can only use the search tools to locate existing claims in their own database. English being a particularly tricky and ambiguous language, and the database being publicly available, means that the patent attorney can reword the patent claims until no hits will be found in the database, even if it describes the exact same thing. You see, if this attorney doesn't yield patents they'll be fired. So, the PTO grants patents with full knowledge that they may not even be valid -- If you want a patent that won't hold water, then they'll let you pay for it. The PTO trusts that any invalid patents will go through the court system if they're to be used against someone.

The court system generally holds the PTO in high esteem, and considers it a matter of job security to have a continual stream of lawsuits and defendants and claimants to pick over in court -- Yep, Like parasitic vultures feasting on the still living but soon dead husks of the economic entities that are unlucky enough to encounter a courtroom. So, they're reluctant to obliterate a patent, and its very costly to get one invalidated -- Which is odd, since the PTO knows that they're granting a percentage of invalid patents... We have court room evidence to prove it.

The state of things is such that the more patents you hold the more likely you'll be able to prevent competition. Thus making it almost impossible for the smaller start ups to stand a chance against the established entities. Some places have FRAND requirements to license patents, but this doesn't help - Why should you have to PAY for some moronic rank-and-file code-monkey / electrical engineer's barely understandable not really that clever ideas that flew under the patent clerk's crowded radar?

The purpose of patents is to free the ideas, bring them to the public... However, NO ONE IS SEARCHING THE PATENT DATABASE. Everyone just goes and "re-invents the wheel" because it's just like doing their jobs normally. In fact, if you do find out about a patent in the database that you MIGHT be infringing and some one takes you to court over it, TRIPPLE DAMAGES can be levvied against you. So, there's ZERO use for the patent database. The information is TOXIC, colluded, and indecipherable, not even clever. There's no good ideas in there to mine that you can license that you can't pay someone less to simply re-invent!

Thus, you are completely and utterly wrong, on all accounts. NONE of the patent lawsuits are legitimate, they're ALWAYS bullshit, and according to the Patent Database, Apple DID, in fact, invent rounded corners.

Re:Motorola? (2)

umghhh (965931) | about a year ago | (#43427733)

Was NK involved in an of this?

Google (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425553)

Can we stop pretending that Motorola is a separate company. It's Google. Motorola is now just a brand owned by Google. The company calling the shots is Google.

Re:Google (2)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about a year ago | (#43425687)

Can we stop pretending that Motorola is a separate company. It's Google. Motorola is now just a brand owned by Google. The company calling the shots is Google.

Google may own Motorola Mobility, but as part of that they agreed to having a hands-off management approach. So no, Google is not necessarily calling the shots at Motorola, and most of these lawsuits (as far MS, Apple, and Motorola are concerned) were brought before Google purchased Motorola - or as result of actions before Google purchased Motorola. Motorola had been trying to get them to pay up for nearly a decade or so.

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425765)

Google may own Motorola Mobility, but as part of that they agreed to having a hands-off management approach.

Citation please.

Re:Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425949)

They said so. Just like they said do no evil.

But no one, except fools, expects them to hold to their words.

There's a reason they didn't make either statement legally binding.

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425973)

Google may own Motorola Mobility, but as part of that they agreed to having a hands-off management approach.

Citation please.

Seriously? Are you trolling or something? That's not even relevant.

[M]ost of these lawsuits (as far MS, Apple, and Motorola are concerned) were brought before Google purchased Motorola - or as result of actions before Google purchased Motorola.

That. Just because Google expanded it, doesn't mean that it isn't a valid patent suit. There's actually HARDWARE PATENTS (*gasp!*) involved here. It's not all shitty fucking rounded corners and slide to unlock bullshit. That's just padding to try to increase the damage to the other side and decrease the amount they're going to have to pay.

Re:Google (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about a year ago | (#43426561)

I don't know anything about the case really, and I don't care much about it either...

But my impression at this point is that Motorola filed suit over their existing hardware patents. Apple then counter sued based on their own "patents".

In my last 8 or so years on this earth, one thing I have learned about the legal system is that, when faced with a law suit you are certainly guilty of, it is standard procedure to counter-sue based on whatever random shit you can come up with, valid or not. Several years ago I had an employer withhold pay that was already earned (along with about 25 other coworkers). After we filed suit on what should have been an open-shut case (at least based on the Colorado Wage Act), we were counter-sued for so many frivolous claims (I was named as a "co-conspirator" to an event that happened before I even worked there... or even lived within 200 miles of the facility) that the end result is that we have been stymied, the law has been broken, and without money or an interested DA, these people (who are incredibly wealthy... ie having libraries at major universities named after their family) end up in the black since all the payroll they refused to pay was likely much much less than their legal fees.

I agree with the judge in this case, but I wonder if it would have been easier and more effective to hire some thugs to break the knees of the lawyers defending the guilty parties.

Lawyers everywhere appalled! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425563)

How can lawyers get even richer if they can't set up laws that generate legal conflict?

How dare this judge turn his back on his weaselly brethren and threaten to expose the whole scam?

Except Lawyers profit from conflict (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43425787)

How can lawyers get even richer if they can't set up laws that generate legal conflict?

Except this is little to do with Lawyers, and everything to do with Steve Jobs protecting Apple from being out innovated by Android, a market that made it the richest company on earth with a market cap of over $400 Billion and $140Billion sat around in cash. The Lawyers are a trivial expense, of what the Judge rightly calls a bushiness strategy.

Re:Except Lawyers profit from conflict (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426021)

So many wrongs in one post, it's not funny, it's disturbing.

Maybe the judge had a phone? (3, Interesting)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43425571)

That had the scrolly features patched away because of one of these lawsuits and sees what kind of bullshit this is. This quite literally happened to one of my friends phones after all this debacle about using the finger to scroll shit.

New Strategy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425577)

The judge should ask Apple if it plans to be in business 200 years from today.
When Apple says yes, the judge should suspend the suit and schedule another hearing in 100 years.
To an immortal corporation, a "speedy trial" can easily be measured in centuries.

Re:New Strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43427737)

Their share holders wont be alive then. As its Apple's responsibility to maximise return to share holders then they cannot possibly wait that long.

Re:New Strategy (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about a year ago | (#43428097)

Their share holders wont be alive then. As its Apple's responsibility to maximise return to share holders then they cannot possibly wait that long.

Apple's? Maybe.
The Judge's? Absolutely not.

Florida judge? WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425579)

Showing that much sense in Florida is against the state constitution, especially by a public official.

The guy is going to get impeached.

Well, no shit........ (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about a year ago | (#43425597)

Next your going to tell me that portable devices have over inflated prices just to turn a larger profit.

Googles Business Strategy (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43425623)

As time goes on it seems that Googles Patent buy is looking better and better value. With Motorola streamlined, its phones finally with 4.x software on, an exciting launch of the X phone to look forward to, and its nice to hear that they can effectively stand up against patent rapists Apples.

Re:Googles Business Strategy (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year ago | (#43425683)

How sad it must be to run Motorola and see all of your hard work at developing the company basically turn in to a multibillion dollar patent portfolio.

Motorola Still Sells Phones :) (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43425959)

How sad it must be to run Motorola and see all of your hard work at developing the company basically turn in to a multibillion dollar patent portfolio.

FYI Motorola still sell phones...and some good ones. Keep your eye out for the Xphone it might just be your next smartphone :)

Re:Motorola Still Sells Phones :) (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year ago | (#43426795)

Nope. I'm digging my Galaxy 4. I don't ever want to sign a cell phone contract again.

Re:Googles Business Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426085)

How sad it must be to run Motorola and see all of your hard work at developing the company basically turn in to a multibillion dollar patent portfolio.

Motorola CEO: "What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of all that money rolling into my bank account..."

change the patent laws.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425721)

they are corrupted and stupid.
For one, whoever built it first, gets it first.
Stop patenting ideas in napkins and paper, without a working prototype.
Stop patenting stupid things like "looks and feel". You can trademark those already.
In software, an algorithm should be patented, not a pie in the sky process with no technical information. And the algorithm should only be patented when it is shown to work. Build a prototype!
To know if there is a legal case, the process should be simple. If you compare the two activity diagrams, for two allegedly different algorithms, and they are similar, you got a case.
 

Mod the Judge up (2, Interesting)

TuckerBag (2644679) | about a year ago | (#43425769)

Sounds like a sensible response from the judge. But what is the long term solution here? Maybe there needs to be a mechanism for disallowing "obvious" ideas to be patented. But then there is the problem of defining what is "obvious". There must be some pretty boring/bored patent lawyers out there.

Re:Mod the Judge up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43425937)

IANAL, but I think we could mod him even further if he is somehow able to do this "with predjudice" such that Apple can't refile. I'm getting sick of the "don't innovate, litigate!" mentality.

Re:Mod the Judge up (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | about a year ago | (#43426197)

The judge should just schedule one claim at a time for status conferences, lets say once a month, with mandatory attendance of all parties. That's 15 years of monthly trips to Florida, if everybody shows up every time. After a couple years I'm sure the lawyers will have worked it out.

Re:Mod the Judge up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43427003)

what is the long term solution here?

Join all right thinking Jihadists in proclaiming the benefits of domestic use of drones.

Re:Mod the Judge up (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about a year ago | (#43427187)

>> Sounds like a sensible response from the judge

Nope. He could and should have just thrown out all claims from both sides.

complaint wrongly addressed (1)

kipsate (314423) | about a year ago | (#43425797)

The judge should complain to the law makers.

Awesome (1, Interesting)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43425851)

Its time that Judge's start to call this for what it is, grandstanding and overt bullying by companies unwilling to work together and instead harm each other through their patent portfolio.

I definitely think the bubble has burst on software patents and judges and lawmakers are getting annoyed with the abuse by companies like Apple.

Its funny though that just a year ago, while Apple was riding high as the world's most valued company, judges were quick to rule in favour of Apple, now judges are just tired of the same old bullshit.

The heart of all this is just a need for companies to offer sane and reasonable licensing and royalties on their protected patents. Apple refuses to let a competitor even remotely create a competitive feature that matches on of their own, and instead of just working out a decent royalty structure instead decides to attempt to annihilate the competition in courts. Of course this has set up a precedence for other companies to treat Apple the same way.

In any case, its great the judges are finally saying enough is enough. There needs to be a few more high profile cases like this thrown out by impatient judges to see this trend end once and for all, but the tide is definitely turning.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426193)

...judges and lawmakers are getting annoyed with the abuse by companies like Apple.

I believe you mean "abuse by companies like Motorola/Google."

(Forgive me for quoting another user (tlhIngan) [slashdot.org] but they already wrote what needs to be mentioned here so why reinvent the wheel)

It's Motorola Mobility v. Apple, not Apple v. Motorola Mobility.

Motorola filed a lawsuit against Apple over patent violations in 2010, and expanded it in 2011 (with Google's permission as the Motorola-Google acquisition happened in the meantime) over more patents. Apple then charged Motorola (then) with patent violations as well.

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc., 12cv20271, U.S. District Court for the District of Florida (Miami)

Re:Awesome (2)

ace37 (2302468) | about a year ago | (#43426235)

Do you feel the Microsoft Windows Phone licensing model fits this royalty and licensing model you suggest? Many on Slashdot claimed that the licensing approach they deployed was simply extortion to increase the cost of Android to match Windows Phone.

Fairly pricing your royalty and licensing costs for patents have always been an issue, a la Xerox. Of course, that's sort of exactly what the patent system is designed to enable - it grants a temporary monopoly to a business in exchange for public disclosure of a proprietary innovation.

It all really falls apart when the patented "innovations" are obvious to the majority of skilled designers or engineers.

Re:Awesome (2)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#43427983)

Its funny though that just a year ago, while Apple was riding high as the world's most valued company, judges were quick to rule in favour of Apple, now judges are just tired of the same old bullshit.

It's actually been more like 1 year, 6 months and six 6 days since the beginning of Apple's decline in the public eye.

What we are seeing is the steady unraveling of Steve Job's reality distortion field (patent pending). Things seem to have been turning around - for the worse - for Apple ever since their blessed founder's death.

They need to carefully search his former office for some fingernail clippings, invest a few billion dollars in human cloning, and get themselves a new Steve Job (an iJob, patent pending) before things go completely tits up. Not to mention they could then sell the process - a sort of immaculate conception (iConception, patent pending) - to any and all comers.

Man, I come up with such good ideas, I don't understand why Cupertino won't answer my calls. ;-)

Zero sympathy for the US legal system. (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | about a year ago | (#43426043)

You made your stupid patent bed, now you must slumber stupidly in it.

Re (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426069)

Alexandra. I can see what your saying... Glenn`s comment is something, last tuesday I got a new Ariel Atom since I been earnin $4511 this past 5 weeks and-more than, ten-grand this past month. with-out any doubt it's the best-work I've ever done. I started this 7-months ago and almost immediately brought home over $84, per-hr. I use the details on this website,, >> BIC5.COM

Yes, they know (3, Funny)

Captain Spam (66120) | about a year ago | (#43426195)

Claiming the parties' were engaged in 'obstreperous and cantankerous conduct', he said that the lawsuit was part of 'a business strategy that appears to have no end.'

Motorola lawyer: Yeah.
Apple lawyer: And?
Judge: *long pause* *deep sigh* Very well. *gets up, starts walking towards lawyers* I believe, at this point, I am legally permitted, by the great State of Florida, to dope-slap the both of you. Not only am I permitted to do so, I may be legally required as well, something I am not about to question. Please turn around.

Re:Yes, they know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43427577)

I believe, at this point, I am legally permitted, by the great State of Florida, to dope-slap the both of you. Not only am I permitted to do so, I may be legally required as well, something I am not about to question. Please turn around.

That's no dope slap!

Judge is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43426707)

he said that the lawsuit was part of 'a business strategy that appears to have no end

No, it's part of conducting business when math can be patented. Don't like it? Outlaw patents on math.

Google was only trying to defend itself (2, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#43427011)

Apple has been pulling this crap since way before Google even existed.

The history of this lawsuit, and much of Apple's legal shananagins, prove this without a doubt.

Apple is pedatory, and loves to abuse the legal system. Google, not so much.

Re:Google was only trying to defend itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43427705)

Every sentence is wrong.

That's impressive.

Simple solution (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43427169)

Just invalidate all the patents both sides claim and move the case over to the Moot Court of the nearest law school.

Man made (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43427177)

The US patent/litigation clusterfuck is a man made disaster as bad as any in recorded history. Its an obscenity a million times worse than all the porn on the internet. Its an American clusterfuck that sadly, they are trying to export. If the judge sees it as a problem, and millions of people see it as a problem, and the government is supposed to be 'for the people', and isn't, then the government needs to be changed.

Legal Job Posting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43427457)

Are you able to throw dick moves at will? How about deflecting a dick move onslaught? If so, we want to talk to you.

~ Google/Apple/M$/Motorola... dick pool

What happened to East Texas? (1)

prodigalmba (2844961) | about a year ago | (#43427539)

This is why we're supposed to try patent infringement cases in East Texas - by contrast to TFA, justices there love it when patent lawyers use the courtroom as a vehicle to advance their employers' business strategy. Was the docket full? Or else how did the defendant manage to get the venue changed?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...