

Judge throws out entire Apple/Motorola case - rakingleaves
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/in-bid-for-patent-sanity-judge-throws-out-entire-applemotorola-case/

======
spodek
As a technology founder who later got an MBA, I've found a divide among the
technology and business camps on patents and trademarks.

Tech people I know generally agree that patents and copyright stifle
innovation. They may once have helped, but no longer.

Business people I know believe patents help create entrepreneurship. They
think about it from a founder's perspective (they haven't founded companies
themselves) and think patents would help that person establish a foothold
against incumbents. They ask, "Without patent protection, how can someone get
paid for their creation?"

As I see it, the business people don't have relevant experience. They're
talking about a myth that doesn't exist anymore if it ever did. People who
innovate and create have relevant experience and know how patents and
copyright are used in practice.

At least this judge understands too. I hope his acts catch on.

The more relevant question seems "Without patent protection, how can patent
lawyers get paid?" because patent lawyers is what the system creates, at the
expense of technological innovation, as I see it anyway.

~~~
tzs
> Tech people I know generally agree that patents and copyright stifle
> innovation.

How do copyrights stifle innovation?

~~~
tsotha
I just heard a great example on the radio the other day. The piece _O Fortuna_
was written by Carl Orff in 1936. In 1991, fifty five years later Orff's
family sued to keep the Belgian group Apotheosis from releasing a heavily
sampled version.

Now I don't know exactly how much the Apotheosis version adds to the body of
culture. Most new music is crap, after all. But it does represent artistic
innovation, and it was definitely stifled.

~~~
tptacek
If someone had asked, "how do patents stifle innovation?", we'd get a thread
full of stories of independent developers and startups with useful products
being sued because some tiny detail of their product, likely some _de rigueur_
aspect of modern UI, violated some obscure patent. Nest vs. Honeywell might be
a good example.

What you have in those stories are cases of valuable enterprises that usually
benefited in no way from the disclosures in the original patent; the
patentholder and the "violator" are usually standing on the shoulders of the
exact same giant.

So, what's the equivalent scenario for copyright? The a band called Apotheosis
couldn't do a remix of _O Fortuna_? One supposes there's a valid case to be
made that we're all somewhat worse off for not having access to that remix...
but it's hard to put it on the same plane as a startup being sued out of
existence because something they designed and implemented was inherently
fenced off by a patent monopoly.

So what's the better example?

~~~
MichaelGG
His example is copyright stifling culture. That's a separate issue.

As far as stifling innovation, one only needs to look at the recording
companies. The resistance to new technologies, easier ways of accessing
"content" - that's definitely restricted by the application of copyright laws.
One recent example is Zediva. Copyright then ends up concentrating on a few
companies that were able to make deals, rather than ones that are continually
innovating in technology. Look at how long it took to get "legal" access to
The Beatles music as MP3s.

I don't think you can see copyright as not stifling innovation in those areas.

But, I suppose, we could argue that it's just the horrible overapplication of
copyright laws that are stifling innovation. A weaker copyright system would
probably work out just fine.

------
angli
As welcome as this news may be from technical and common sense standpoints,
I'm not sure if it's a good thing from a legal one. This whole affair seems to
me (and I may be wrong) like one judge deciding that the law is bad, and thus
that the suits are meritless. While this seems great as long as you agree with
the judge's view, I think it opens a pandora's box.

Imagine if a right-wing Christian judge tosses out anti-creationism lawsuits,
or pro-RIAA judges toss out anti-RIAA lawsuits. Even worse, imagine a judge
indirectly on the RIAA payroll! Granted, these are all a long ways away from
this case, but I believe that applauding this judge's actions is the wrong
reaction.

~~~
ajross
I don't follow. If a judge tosses out a _bad_ suit, it is a good thing. If
they toss out a good suit, that's bad. We want judges to do the right thing.

Your view is what: that we don't want judges doing the right thing because the
legal systems is somehow karmicly bound to follow it with a bad decision in
some other case?

To hell with that. Posner is a hero right now. I say we celebrate.

~~~
wtallis
We want judges to uphold the law, not rewrite it. We have legislators for
doing that, and it is very much by design that those jobs are _separate_.

If there are bad laws on the books that are only sporadically enforced, then
people are being denied the very fundamental right of _equal protection_.
That's never good in the long run.

~~~
novalis
If you want judges to uphold the law, you must remember that the law allows
for jurisprudent behaviour from judges that shape internal problems of the law
and legal systems.

That is to be upheld too. There are bad cases that try to use bad laws, this
was the one. You seem to be on the other side of this but that doesn't make it
so that there was any 'rewriting' done by this judge. He upheld the law as in,
sides were not allowed to give proof of infringement based on their own
'specialists'. Because that can turn the court to a circus as is always the
case when people end up comparing rectangular shaped objects. This set the
tone for the conclusion in a massive patent troll case. This may happen more
and more from now on and it will bring needed change.

------
stephengillie
Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085502>

------
vineet
Now that this has happened, I am wondering what the direct implications of
this are to the industry (especially the 'dismissed with prejudice' part).

edit: added the "to the industry" part.

~~~
hinathan
It the plaintiff can't file suit again with the same patents against the same
respondent.

~~~
vineet
I wasn't clear (just updated the previous comment).

What I am wondering is - does this lead to the entire patent industry coming
crumbling down? I am expecting that part might not be likely, but I am trying
to figure out what part is to be expected.

------
jeffnappi
s/Motorola/Google/g

------
spacestation
"Posner complained that Apple's attempt to get an injunction restricting the
sale of Motorola phones would have "catastrophic effects" on the mobile device
market and consumers."

\- the moral of the story is steal and get the stolen goods into as many 3rd
party hands as possible, so that by taking it away from would cause chaos and
outrage. "Don't be evil"? That's criminal and evil at perfection.

~~~
hatcravat
I'm not sure if you're being a troll, but I'll bite anyway.

This is about consumer choice: Motorola clearly does not have any device which
effectively competes with the iPhone. Further, allowing Motorola to pick and
choose who it competes against (remember, they are arguing that, as the holder
of a patent required to implement a standards-compliant device, they get to
play gatekeeper for the mobile phone market) is plainly against the interests
of the consumer.

~~~
antiterra
Motorola's request for injunctive relief is a different animal than the Apple
request at issue in spacestation's comment. The denial of Motorola's request
involves their own claim/classification of their patent as necessary for all
cell phones and therefore subject to a fairly licensed classification (FRAND.)
Posner seems pretty amenable to a mechanical license in that case, but
Motorola failed to provide evidence of a fair price for such a mechanism.
Further, he suggests Apple has invented around this patent anyway and it isn't
actually 'necessary.'

