• Judge who threw out Apple v Motorola says software patents are bullshit
    36 replies, posted
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/us-apple-google-judge-idUSBRE8640IQ20120705[/url] [quote=Reuters]The U.S. judge who tossed out one of the biggest court cases in Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) smartphone technology battle is questioning whether patents should cover software or most other industries at all. Richard Posner, a prolific jurist who sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, told Reuters this week that the technology industry's high profits and volatility made patent litigation attractive for companies looking to wound competitors. "It's a constant struggle for survival," he said in his courthouse chambers, which have a sparkling view of Monroe Harbor on Lake Michigan. [B]"As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal, all their teeth and claws that are permitted by the ecosystem."[/B] Posner, 73, was appointed as a federal appeals court judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and has written dozens of books, including one about economics and intellectual property law. Posner, who teaches at the University of Chicago, effectively ended Apple's lawsuit against Google Inc's (GOOG.O) Motorola Mobility unit last month. He canceled a closely anticipated trial between the two and rejected the iPhone maker's request for an injunction barring the sale of Motorola products using Apple's patented technology. Apple is in a pitched battle with its competitors over patents, as technology companies joust globally for consumers in the fast-growing markets for smartphones and tablet computers. Posner said some industries, like pharmaceuticals, had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug. Advances in software and other industries cost much less, he said, and the companies benefit tremendously from being first in the market with gadgets - a benefit they would still get if there were no software patents. [B]"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," he said.[/B] Also, devices like smartphones have thousands of component features, and they all receive legal protection. [B]"You just have this proliferation of patents," Posner said. "It's a problem."[/B] GENERATION SMARTPHONE [B]The Apple/Motorola case did not land in front of Posner by accident. He volunteered to oversee it.[/B] Federal appellate judges occasionally offer to preside over district court cases. Posner had alerted the district judges of his interest in patents, so after part of the smartphone battle landed in Wisconsin federal court, the judge there transferred the case to him. When Posner began working on the smartphone case, he told the litigants he was "really neutral" because he used a court-issued BlackBerry made by Research In Motion Ltd (RIM.TO). He soon accepted an upgrade to an iPhone, but only uses it to check email and call his wife, he said. "I'm not actually that interested in becoming part of the smartphone generation," he said. Posner's corner office is filled with the requisite library of law tomes, and a row of books he wrote sits alongside his family photographs. He also has a signed photograph from the late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., for whom he clerked in the early 1960s. Judges rarely speak openly to the press, but Posner is outspoken on a range of topics. Last week in online magazine Slate, he penned a withering critique of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent dissent in the Arizona immigration case. "It wouldn't surprise me if Justice Scalia's opinion were quoted in campaign ads," Posner wrote. MOTOROLA V. APPLE Motorola sued Apple in October 2010, a move that was widely seen as a pre-emptive strike. Apple filed its own claims against Motorola the same month. [B]In canceling the trial, Posner said an injunction barring the sale of Motorola phones would harm consumers. He also rejected the idea of trying to ban an entire phone based on patents that cover individual features like the smooth operation of streaming video.[/B] [B]Apple's patent, Posner wrote in his June 22 order, "is not a claim to a monopoly of streaming video!"[/B] Not all judges in the patent wars share Posner's skepticism of injunctions. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, granted Apple two critical pretrial injunctions against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS) last week: one against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the other against the Galaxy Nexus phone. In Friday's 101-page ruling barring the Galaxy Nexus, Koh cited the harms to Apple due to competition from phones that infringe its patent on the Siri search feature. Samsung is appealing both injunctions. Posner said he had not read Koh's orders. In his own ruling, Posner also barred Motorola from seeking an injunction against the iPhone because the company had pledged to license its patent on fair and reasonable terms to other companies - in exchange for having the technology adopted as an industry standard. Posner's idea of examining whether industries like software should receive patent protection is a mainstream one, especially in the computer industry, said John Allison, a professor at University of Texas at Austin who studies intellectual property rights. [B]However, recent patent law reforms passed by the U.S. Congress did not directly address the issue, and Allison said classifying industries for the purposes of intellectual property protection - as Posner suggests - was "completely impractical" because talented lawyers could game the system.[/B] When it comes to the smartphone litigation wars, Posner said tech companies should not be blamed for jumping into court since they are merely taking the opportunities that the legal system offers. Given the large cash reserves in Silicon Valley, high legal fees are not a deterrent. Apple, for instance, had $110 billion in cash and securities as of March 31. "It's a small expense for them," Posner said. Posner said he had been looking forward to presiding over a trial between Motorola and Apple, but had no other choice than to toss the case. "I didn't think I could have a trial just for fun," he said.[/quote] BTW this isn't some radical young judge, it's an old man running the world [img]http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120705&t=2&i=626819811&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBRE8640ZB800[/img] Incidentally the Judge in Oracle v Google, the one who revealed he was a programmer and called out Oracle's BS, was 67. It's a total myth that misinformed old people are responsible for this sort of thing. Stupidity and corruption have no age limit
suddenly some faith in the justice system over patents has been restored
[QUOTE=smurfy;36636943] Incidentally the Judge in Oracle v Google, the one who revealed he was a programmer and called out Oracle's BS, was 67. It's a total myth that misinformed old people are responsible for this sort of thing. Stupidity and corruption have no age limit[/QUOTE] Okay look I appreciate your point and agree with you that FP is retarded in this manner but did you really need to use this news as a platform for your views
[QUOTE=scout1;36637001]Okay look I appreciate your point and agree with you that FP is retarded in this manner but did you really need to use this news as a platform for your views[/QUOTE] Well it affirms his view/point so why not?
[QUOTE=scout1;36637001]Okay look I appreciate your point and agree with you that FP is retarded in this manner but did you really need to use this news as a platform for your views[/QUOTE] Meh, sometimes I wait until somebody else posts, then reply and post my opinion. Other times I can't be fucked
This shows that age has no value, but rather understanding of the subject. The same should be applied to all judges, they should know what they are judging.
Glad to see at least [b]some[/b] people in the judicial system see this. Shame nothing will come from it. I can hardly see software patents disappearing within any respectable time-frame.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;36637106]Glad to see at least [b]some[/b] people in the judicial system see this. Shame nothing will come from it. I can hardly see software patents disappearing within any respectable time-frame.[/QUOTE] God damnt I fucking hate your title.
I want to shake that guys hand. Total tech bro.
I like him. unrelated: jesus fuck that title
[QUOTE=Dysgalt;36637129]God damnt I fucking hate your title.[/QUOTE] Got the [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1183052]Title fixer?[/url] It's still pretty bad though
[QUOTE=smurfy;36637169]Got the [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1183052]Title fixer?[/url] It's still pretty bad though[/QUOTE] Hot damn I love you.
[QUOTE=smurfy;36636943]BTW this isn't some radical young judge, it's an old man running the world[/QUOTE] OLD MEN... ARE THE FUTURE!
Some say he's so neutral, that people criticize him for being too neutral.
[QUOTE=Hinterlight;36637255]OLD MEN... ARE THE FUTURE![/QUOTE] electronic
I'm sure there's probably maybe one valid use for them. But good on this judge!
[QUOTE=garychencool;36637677]Some say he's so neutral, that people criticize him for being too neutral.[/QUOTE] He's quite the fair judge. [I]too fair.[/I]
an old man that understands
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36637710]electronic[/QUOTE] Old men. Warning. Warning.
[QUOTE=smurfy;36637052]Meh, sometimes I wait until somebody else posts, then reply and post my opinion. Other times I can't be fucked[/QUOTE] putting it into the OP so that it won't be immediately challenged and will be the only impression most people viewing the thread get is pretty stupid IMO, but whatever
Patents should really only be given to those who create something truly innovative.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36638252]Patents should really only be given to those who create something truly innovative.[/QUOTE] Patents shouldn't be nearly as general as they are.
Precedence OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHH! Right?
[QUOTE=scout1;36638183]putting it into the OP so that it won't be immediately challenged and will be the only impression most people viewing the thread get is pretty stupid IMO, but whatever[/QUOTE] You immediately challenged it
Wait for a different judge to overturn his decision because bias??
[QUOTE]Not all judges in the patent wars share Posner's skepticism of injunctions. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, granted Apple two critical pretrial injunctions against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS) last week: one against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the other against the Galaxy Nexus phone. In Friday's 101-page ruling barring the Galaxy Nexus, Koh cited the harms to Apple due to competition from phones that infringe its patent on the Siri search feature. Samsung is appealing both injunctions. Posner said he had not read Koh's orders.[/QUOTE] Posner should read this. I mean "universal search" patent? Slide-to-unlock? Posner will play this down [B]hard[/B].
I have nothing against software patents in general. If you have a unique feature and you want to keep it to yourself, that's cool. I start having something against software patents when generic bullshit stuff gets patented. Slide-to-unlock? A search across your entire device? A generic UI design? Fuck that shit, that doesn't deserve to be patented!
i love this guy
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;36639006]I have nothing against software patents in general. If you have a unique feature and you want to keep it to yourself, that's cool. I start having something against software patents when generic bullshit stuff gets patented. Slide-to-unlock? A search across your entire device? A generic UI design? Fuck that shit, that doesn't deserve to be patented![/QUOTE] The problem not only lies with generic patents, but also with the market's oversaturation of various phones and products that do the same general thing 'except better' this combined with Apple's efforts to monopolize and challenge all competition, and the utter clusterfuck of patents, lawsuits, attempted bans and otherwise are probably going to lead to a phone version of the Great Video Game Crash in the early 80's.
This guy needs to be made the ruling judge on every patent case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.