If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Judge: Apple, would you be willing to accept my judgment? Apple: No, not really Judge: Case dismissed, have fun paying Google for each iPhone you make   (bloomberg.com) divider line 13
    More: Interesting, Apple Inc., Google, Motorola Mobility, patent portfolio, iPhone  
•       •       •

14208 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Nov 2012 at 12:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-07 10:22:57 PM
2 votes:

GhostFish: This is like the Judgment of Solomon.
Except Solomon isn't suggesting that the baby be cut in half.
Instead, the two women are tearing the baby in half with their bare hands. 

So maybe it's not like the Judgment of Solomon after all.


Apple: That is my baby!!!
Motorola: Actually, it's my baby. Here's the birth certificate. And the hospital photos. And the birth announcement.
Judge: Will you accept my judgement?
Motorola: Yes
Apple: Only if you say it's my baby!!!
2012-11-07 07:05:12 PM
2 votes:

Theaetetus:
Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?


You are missing a bit of a key bit here, Apple wasn't talking about appeal. Apple was asking the court to force Motorola to set a FRAND license price for the patents. The court asked "If we determine a FRAND price, will Apple be obligated to license it at that price?" Apple responded "Nope! But if it is less than $1 per unit we probably will take that." The Judge rightfully came to the conclusion that the case was worthless unless the results were binding on both parties and thus solved the dispute, thought that Apple had started the case in bad faith (as they were unwilling to be bound by the court's future ruling), and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Simply put Apple's position was that they didn't even have to appeal if they didn't like the price; they instead could just walk away.
2012-11-07 07:01:42 PM
2 votes:

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: justtray:

Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with. They've never been the first to bring a given technology to market, and they have a long history of failing to adapt even basic features their competitors have until years later. FFS, the only reason Apple even still exists today is because Microsoft gave them a shiat-ton of money in the 90s. But I'm sure you're too busy sucking on Jobs' zombie wang to be aware of any of that.


Key Apple Innovations:

The Lisa - not to be confused with the Xerox STAR system
The Newton - not to be confused with the Psion Organizer
Mac OS X - not to be confused with NEXT
The iPhone - not to be confused with the Prada LG Phone
2012-11-07 03:25:39 PM
2 votes:

Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".


I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit. They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.
2012-11-08 10:16:44 AM
1 votes:

ZAZ: starsrift

Suppose there are 200 essential patents covering a $200 phone. The patents can't be worth more than $1 each on average, even though each is essential to the product.


Then it isn't a 200 dollar phone, is it?

That was an easy one. You don't set a price and work backward to figure out what it cost to make an item, and that holds true for physical parts as well as intellectual.

None of that means the patent isn't worth more or less than a dollar. On that I don't know, but you can't determine that a patent IS worth a dollar because heck you plan on selling the phone for 200 bucks and you want to make it a phone that includes another X dollars in patents and Y dollars in materials.
2012-11-07 07:22:43 PM
1 votes:

bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.


It is not Apple's place to determine whether a judgment imposed by the legal system is fair or not. The judge refused to be party to a farce in which a corporation declared themselves above the government of the United States -- good for him.

And please, if you have any evidence of judges being "paid puppets" as you state, come forward. Bribing a judge is illegal, for both the briber and the bribee.
2012-11-07 07:18:57 PM
1 votes:

TheAnvil: fluffy2097: If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.

These companies make mega millions by selling these components to Apple. They're not doing to be charitable saps.

These lawsuits are daily routine. It's just business, it's nothing personal, Sonny, even if the Corleone family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, since the Godfather died from pancreatic cancer.


Samsung already decided not to sell them LCD panels. Which is why they're relying on Sharp as a supplier for the iPhone 5. Sharp, who's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
2012-11-07 04:01:45 PM
1 votes:
2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!
2012-11-07 03:48:18 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.

Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?


Theaetetus: joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.

Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?


Well, it kinda was preemptive, as far as things went.

Motorola had not filed a patent infringement suit against Apple.

Motorola had made a licensing offer which Apple rejected.

Apple had not submitted a counteroffer of any kind before filing suit.

Apple had not gone through any of the ETSI complaint mechanisms afforded FRAND licensees before filing suit.
2012-11-07 03:41:58 PM
1 votes:
I love it.

Apple is going to be bankrupt in a few years.

They're going to piss off every judge on the planet so much they won't be able to sell their products anywhere.

If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.
2012-11-07 01:43:36 PM
1 votes:
Eh screw apple. Apple complaining about unreasonable pricing of anything makes me laugh.
2012-11-07 12:37:53 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.


Apple plays by no rules, other than its own.

Problem is, its rules are stupid, inane, and make no sense in the real world.

/This is why I'm a tech merc
2012-11-07 10:49:27 AM
1 votes:
Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report