EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS


Groklaw Slams the US Legal Framework for (Mis)Handling of Patents

Posted in Patents at 4:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“I am a US citizen, and I’m ashamed of what has just happened.” –Pamela Jones

Groklaw team

Summary: Even the popular Web site headed by a law professor and a paralegal is growing angry at what it is increasingly viewing as protectionism that facilitates corruption, not justice

PATENT maximalists have long used the nice-sounding word “innovation” in order to market to the public corporate protectionism, which does not sound as widely beneficial as “innovation”. Public perceptions are evolving on all sorts of issues, one of which is patents.

Ever since Google took part of Motorola it has been involved in battles where patent stacking by Apple and Microsoft challenged the zero cost of Android, the world’s leading operating system (as measured in terms of number of new installations). Geoffrey Manne writes:

It remains to be seen if the costs to consumers from firms curtailing their investments in R&D or withholding their patents from the standard-setting process will outweigh the costs (yes, some costs do exist; the patent system is not frictionless and it is far from perfect, of course) from the “over”-enforcement of SEPs lamented by critics. But what is clear is that these costs can’t be ignored. Reverse hold-up can’t be wished away, and there is a serious risk that the harm likely to be caused by further eroding the enforceability of SEPs by means of injunctions will significantly outweigh whatever benefits it may also confer.

SEPs are standard-essential patents, as we covered recently. The one with her eyes on the FRAND ball is the headmistress of Groklaw. Citing a 2006 paper, Jones shows that “royalty stacking” has long been seen as a form of “exploitative abuse”. Jones also cites an analysis showing the relevance of this to the Samsung-Apple battle. Noting Microsoft’s contribution to this battle, she writes:

Motorola Presses Its Case v. Microsoft’s FRAND Attack in Seattle and in Germany


As for the judge, he’s maybe starting to realize that some of his assumptions about FRAND requirements conflict with what the experts are now telling him. He expresses a measure of confusion about it in an order [PDF] on what the experts for both sides can tell the jury. Here’s what he won’t allow Motorola’s experts to tell them: that being willing to negotiate is sufficient to meet a FRAND obligation. That contradicts what this judge has already ruled in this crazy case, so he doesn’t like that, I suppose. The “reason” they can’t say that to the jury is, he says, because he gets to decide what is or isn’t a fulfillment of a RAND obligation, in that he’s Da Law on Microsoft’s obligations under Washington state law which he believes the world must go along with, Germany included. Experts can’t opine on legal conclusions. However, Motorola has now informed him via this route that he’s been getting some things seriously wrong on what FRAND obligations are and what good faith requires. Perhaps it will influence him. He says that the Motorola experts can input how the jury instructions read. I wouldn’t put much faith in that if I were Motorola, and I gather they don’t. This German prong is getting interesting, I must say.

As FOSS Force put it the other day:

Microsoft continues to collect patents [payments] from nearly everyone using Android, without proving a thing.

Meanwhile, notes Jones, the Microsoft-led Nokia is threatening Android with FRAND as well. Quoting a slightly old article, she picks her words as follows: “This is an article from June, I know, but it speaks to the problem the ITC was trying to address, before the White House just emasculated the ITC. It’s for subscribers only, but I wanted you to know about it, because Nokia’s counsel said that in the past, companies were “far more likely” to respect IP because they participated in the standardisation process and had the incentive to make sure it worked. But today would-be licensees “apply the totally opposite strategy” and “established and respected companies” wilfully infringe IP. That is exactly what Apple and Microsoft have been doing, as I see it. They claim they respect IP, and they demand that theirs be respected, but they have yet to pay Samsung or Motorola for their FRAND patents, instead forcing them to incur the expense of litigation while they enjoy a long, free ride. Lukander said that the problem of free-riding is much greater than any problem of hold up by FRAND patent owners, and that as a result, Nokia has decided to step back from the standardisation process, electing either not to join certain standard-setting organisations or not to contribute certain technologies to these organisations. The FRAND system used to work fine, Nokia said, because negotiations usually worked, but they only worked because the threat of an injunction inspired cooperative negotiations. But now, it’s working against innovation and against users, because it’s no longer balanced. Timothy Lucie-Smith, head of IP licensing at Ericsson, is also quoted in the article, saying that companies that accused others of hold-ups “just want to get a good deal [after] coming late to the development process”. And that’s exactly what I’ve been telling you this is about, since day one.”

“The ITC’s political bias and harm to innovation is so controversial that even lawyers’ blogs call for its dismissal.”Remember when Groklaw protected Apple’s side in a lawsuit for a long time? That all seems to be undone now. “Apple drops to 32% tablet market share in Q2 amidst strong YoY Android growth,” said one headline. Jones commented on it by saying it “will continue, because no one admires a bully.”

So Jones is definitely not sympathising with Apple or buying Apple products anymore. That’s good. While unprepared to criticise the USPTO as much as we have, she is definitely slamming the ITC and some of this peripheral legal bureaucracy right now. The ITC’s political bias and harm to innovation is so controversial that even lawyers’ blogs call for its dismissal. Our wiki page about the ITC shows that none of this should be seen as new. Pamela Jones said something which we said years ago about this corruption of the system. To quote: “By that definition of the ITC, they certainly did their job, protect a US company from a “foreigner” even though Apple was found by the ITC to be guilty of reverse holdup.”

Yes, exactly. Not news.

“It’s not even a small step to patent reform to make the system even less fair,” she added. “As long as they are Apple’s and not Samsung’s property rights” the ITC will do its thing, she believes.

“Apple is already moving to ban Samsung again.”On another day she wrote: “It’s so obviously protectionism, it’s hardly a surprise that it’s upset people. Samsung was found by the ITC to have behaved in good faith, but Apple was ruled to have been guilty of “reverse hold up”, meaning it didn’t present itself as a willing licensee. If *that* isn’t enough to justify an injunction, when everyone — courts and regulators — say it should be enough, what would be? And the reason given — that they were worried about FRAND hold up — is clearly not the real reason, since in this fact pattern, it was actually the opposite. So, it’s a black mark on the US in Korea. If courts and regulators play favorites, based on a company’s nation of origin, why wouldn’t other countries do the same? And if you can’t get a fair shake in the US, why would companies located elsewhere ever donate anything to a standard, knowing that they have no way to enforce their rights? Nokia has already said it won’t be donating as it has in the past. Telling such companies that they are still free to enforce their rights in court is silly. It costs millions for a patent infringement lawsuit, for starters, while unwilling licensees like Apple free ride, and as we saw in the Apple v. Samsung litigation, fairness isn’t at all what a foreign company can expect to receive in US courtrooms either. Apple is the biggest US taxpayer, and it paid off. That’s about it. And it smells funny. Yes. I said it. This is about lobbying by Microsoft and Apple, here and in Europe and Australia and wherever they can. It has nothing to do with FRAND holdup. It’s not even pretending to be about fairness. It’s about money. Apple and Microsoft don’t have a lot of FRAND patents. So they want to block competitors in the smartphone market from distribution with regular patents and design patents — just wait to see what ITC does to Samsung next week, with the excuse that the patents are utility patents, not FRAND — and then Samsung and others who developed this field are blocked from doing the same. Sound fair to you? I am a US citizen, and I’m ashamed of what has just happened.”

For those who believe there is no harm, Jones cites this report:

The decision will probably handicap Samsung’s ability to obtain higher technology licensing fees from Apple in any negotiations, said Susan Kohn Ross, a trade lawyer with Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp in Los Angeles.

And guess what? Apple is already moving to ban Samsung again. From the same corporate news site:

Apple Inc. (AAPL) is trying to force Samsung Electronics Co.’s mobile devices off U.S. store shelves a week after dodging an iPhone 4 ban by a rare White House veto.

As Jones put it in relation to this separate article: “The US can waive Apple’s reverse holdup regarding Samsung’s FRAND patent, because the US economy needs and wants iPhones. But if India looks at its own national needs with respect to IP, that’s not allowed.”

The problem here is systemic. So we need to hammer the system, which a corporate coup distorted if not created. Here is Jones’ longer analysis of this case:

The ITC, according to the Wall St. Journal, decided today to order an injunction against certain Samsung products, thanks to Apple, who was just shown mercy by the President when the shoe was on the other foot. Of course, you know this isn’t necessarily the end. The President gets to do for Samsung what it did for Apple, should he so desire:

As part of its findings, the ITC overturned an administrative judge’s earlier finding that Samsung infringed a potentially important Apple patent on phone design.

The ITC said Samsung can continue to import and sell its infringing devices during a two-month period in which the Obama administration can review Friday’s order.

Samsung had warned the ITC that a product ban potentially could have a significant impact on the South Korean company’s U.S. devices and create “an immediate and long-lasting shortfall” of smartphones in the U.S. market.

Remember that patent aggression that Microsoft had engaged in and the lawsuit filed against a government department which stood in Microsoft's way? Google is trying to do the right thing here. As one report put it, “Google Asks Judge to Toss Microsoft Suit Over Phone Ban”.

“This whole system is undergoing a rapid collapse, so US citizens should reform or overthrow parts of it.”Well, that was a great reminder that the same government which fights privacy, truth/whistleblowing, and even journalism while firmly standing for torture, assassination and indefinite detainment without charges is no exception when it comes to patents. This whole system is undergoing a rapid collapse, so US citizens should reform or overthrow parts of it. The end of the patent regime, for instance, is long overdue.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New

  1. Puff Pieces of the EPO-IPO (EPO+EUIPO) Have Begun to Appear Amid New Evidence of Brain Drain, Lowered Standards

    The grim vision of the EPO which is losing all its talent (over time), becomes more like a production line (quality does not matter), and produces propaganda for "media positioning" (or "placements") -- all under the guise of 'studies'

  2. Leaked: Minutes From the Administrative Council of the EPO Regarding the 'Reform' (Exile) of the Boards of Appeal

    Details of the relatively secret proceedings back in June (belatedly released only a short while ago), carefully abbreviated to demonstrate which delegations helped Battistelli crush the Boards of Appeal and which ones insisted on maintaining the status quo, as per the EPC

  3. No Promising Future For the EPO Under Battistelli (If Any Future At All)

    Pessimism becomes realism at the European Patent Office as units are being torn apart, patent quality discarded, "unified" patent courts dreamed of (more patent lawsuits, higher damages), and EUIPO (EU-associated, unlike Eponia) gets closer to the EPO

  4. Leaked Minutes From the EPO Reveal That Battistelli is Detached From Reality and Blames Everything on “Union Officials”

    Minutes of the Administrative Council's meeting reveal some truly bizarre rants from Battistelli, who simply refuses to accept that the European Patent Office is burning (without a future direction, only burnout and brain drain) under his poor and abusive leadership

  5. Tata/TCS is Still Pushing for Software Patents in India

    The obnoxious company that is promoting Microsoft and software patents in a country that needs neither makes the headlines again (Financial Express)

  6. Links 25/10/2016: Rackspace's Praise of FOSS, Chain Chooses the GPL(v3)

    Links for the day

  7. Links 24/10/2016: Linux 4.9 RC2

    Links for the day

  8. Battistelli Plans to Expand the Social [sic] 'Study' (Then 'Conference') Propaganda Until Next Month, Under the 'Workshop' Umbrella

    Milking his shameless propaganda (paid-for 'studies'), Battistelli wants to rewrite the record by all means possible, then pretend that EPO staff participates in it

  9. EPO and EUIPO Join Hands to Release Propaganda (for European Media to Parrot) Some Time Tomorrow

    EPO and EUIPO in collaboration for the promotion of the notion that they are both necessary (and reinforced speculations about growing overlap between them)

  10. UPC Preparatory Committee Puts the Brakes on UPC Amid Brexit and Growing Uncertainty

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) preparatory committee recognises that the UPC isn't going anywhere (any time soon) and false job advertisements -- or advertisements for jobs that will never exist -- are withdrawn

  11. Updates Regarding EPO and BoAC: Unrest and Injustice Carry on

    Some of the latest information which is publicly and privately available to us, in particular regarding the case of a suspended judge which represents unprecedented erosion of the appeal boards' independence (and hence lack of justice in the Organisation)

  12. EPO and the “Iberian Connection”: Patricia García-Escudero Márquez - Battistelli's Pet Chinchilla on the Boards of Appeal Committee?

    Why the Boards of Appeal Committee has begun showing prominent signs that it is anything but independent and capable of standing up to Battistelli (or his circle at the Office, which includes the “Iberian Connection")

  13. Links 23/10/2016: Alcatel's New Android Smartphones, Another Honorary Doctorate for Stallman

    Links for the day

  14. Open Letter Exposing the Farce Which Was Battistelli's 'Social Conference' Coinciding With Further (New) Attacks on EPO Staff Representatives

    A detailed letter reveals legitimate concerns expressed by staff representatives at the EPO ahead of the so-called Social Conference, in which we have highlighted severe factual flaws

  15. Translation of Latest Rant From French MP Philip Cordery About Benoît Battistelli's Abuses at the EPO

    Philip Cordery crosses horns with Benoît Battistelli, who has become a source of embarrassment for France with his autocratic tendencies and misguided policies that rapidly ruin the European Patent Office (EPO)

  16. Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: Leaked Document Shows PwC's Dishonesty and Misrepresentation of EPO Staff

    An in-depth analysis (but not comprehensive, just preliminary) of the so-called 'study' from PwC, which basically did what it was paid for (pay to say)

  17. Links 22/10/2016: Deus Ex for GNU/Linux, Global DDoS (DNS)

    Links for the day

  18. Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: Survey Comparison Shows Serious Deterioration and Efforts by PwC to Disguise the Truth

    The latest output from PwC turns out to be even worse than initially thought, indicating that not only did it find a degradation in the EPO but also attempted to hide/obscure it

  19. EPO Teaser - The "Iberian Connection" - Some Photos of García-Escudero and His Royal/Government Connections

    A look at the undeniably close connections between Mr. García-Escudero and the most powerful people in Spain

  20. Disruption to Site's Service

    A technical note about why Techrights has not been publishing many articles recently

  21. Links 21/10/2016: MPV 0.21, Mad Max for GNU/Linux

    Links for the day

  22. EPO Caricature: Battistelli's High Five

    Another cartoon about the sad state of the EPO

  23. Battistelli Ruins Not Only the EPO But Also the Whole of Europe By Ushering in Software Patents That Patent Trolls Love So Much

    Battistelli's bad leadership at the EPO threatens to bring to Europe all the ills and menaces of the patent system in the United States

  24. EPO Spokesman Lies to IP Watch in Order to Save Face and Save the King (Battistelli)

    Rewriting history (revisionism) regarding Battistelli and what was demanded amidst abusive behaviour from him

  25. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead, But 'Managing IP' and Selfish Patent Law Firms Still Try to Resurrect It

    The latest attempts to shore up the Unitary (or Unified) Patent Court and who's behind it other than the usual suspects

  26. Links 20/10/2016: Linux 4.10 Preview, ONF and ON.Labs to Merge

    Links for the day

  27. Battistelli-Commissioned PwC 'Study': The Raw Outcome Shows Distortion of the Facts at the EPO's Notorious 'Social Conference'

    Results of the Staff Survey carried out by PwC, in order to provide some propaganda for Battistelli's expensive Social Conference

  28. Addendum: EPO's Alberto Casado Cerviño, WIPO's Francis Gurry, and EUIPO's Archambeau

    Photos taken as part of an IP event which took place in Riga (Latvia) in March 2015

  29. Worrisome Connections Between EPO VP2 Alberto Casado Cerviño and Patricia García-Escudero Márquez

    Exploring the potential conflicts of interests implicating the EPO's Boards of Appeal Committee

  30. Site's Infrastructure Under Attack and Upgrades Ahead of Major New Publications

    Protections for the Web site have been improved and capacity increased in order to avoid or at least prepare for another week of abusive/spam traffic


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time


Recent Posts