Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

"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.

No, the argument against injunctive relief was far more complicated and complete than that quote implies. Apple didn't seek relief for loss of royalties, which would give them tangible benefits for injunctive relief. Posner argues that Apple's pursuit of injunctive relief is an attempt at a punitive action in disguise. An "invent around" is trivial in a specific case, and the logistics of forcing of such an invent around would give Apple no benefit other than the punishing of Motorola is the issue.

It might not hurt to give scanning the opinion a try. Call me crazy, but I enjoy reading these things.

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.

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.'

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact