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. The Spanish EPO Scandal - Part I

    How García-Escudero Marquez, the sister of a Spanish Senate speaker, got controversially appointed to succeed the (now) EPO's Vice-President Alberto Casado Cerviño

  2. Media Alert: IAM 'Magazine' Does Not Protect Sources

    An important discussion regarding the role of IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) in the debate about EPO abuses

  3. Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen on the Microsoft-Red Hat Deal

    Founder of Free software and author of the GPL (respectively) comment on what Microsoft and Red Hat have done regarding patents

  4. Links 30/11/2015: Linux 4.4 RC3, Zaragoza Moving to FOSS

    Links for the day

  5. Public Protests by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff Weaken the EPO's Attacks on the Media

    Where things stand when it comes to the EPO's standoff against publications and why it's advisable for EPO staff to stage standoffs against their high-level management, which is behind a covert crackdown on independent media (while greasing up corporate media)

  6. Why the European Patent Office Cannot Really Sue and Why It's All -- More Likely Than Not -- Just SLAPP

    Legal analysis by various people explains why the EPO's attack dogs are all bark but no bite when it comes to threats against publishers

  7. How the EPO Twisted Defamation Law in a Failed Bid to Silence Techrights

    Using external legal firms (not the EPO's own lawyers), the EPO has been trying -- and failing -- to silence prominent critics

  8. East Texas and Its Cautionary Tale: Software Patents Lead to Patent Trolls

    Lessons from US media, which focuses on the dire situation in Texas courts, and how these relate to the practice of granting patents on software (the patent trolls' favourite weapon)

  9. The Latest EPO Spin: Staff Protesters Compared to 'Anti-Patent Campaigners' or 'Against UPC'

    Attempts to characterise legitimate complaints about the EPO's management as just an effort to derail the patent office itself, or even the patent system (spin courtesy of EPO and its media friends at IAM)

  10. The Serious Implication of Controversial FTI Consulting Contract: Every Press Article About EPO Could Have Been Paid for by EPO

    With nearly one million dollars dedicated in just one single year to reputation laundering, one can imagine that a lot of media coverage won't be objective, or just be synthetic EPO promotion, seeded by the EPO or its peripheral PR agents

  11. EPO: We Have Always Been at War With Europe (or Europeans)

    The European Patent Office (EPO) with its dubious attacks on free speech inside Europe further unveiled for the European public to see (as well as the international community, which oughtn't show any respect to the EPO, a de facto tyranny at the heart of Europe)

  12. What Everyone Needs to Know About the EPO's New War on Journalism

    A detailed list of facts or observations regarding the EPO's newfound love for censorship, even imposed on outside entities, including bloggers (part one of several to come)

  13. EPO Did Not Want to Take Down One Techrights Article, It Wanted to Take Down Many Articles Using Intimidation, SLAPPing, and Psychological Manipulation Late on a Friday Night

    Recalling the dirty tactics by which the European Patent Office sought to remove criticism of its dirty secret deals with large corporations, for whom it made available and was increasingly offering preferential treatment

  14. The European Private Office: What Was Once a Public Service is Now Crony Capitalism With Private Contractors

    The increasing privatisation of the European Patent Office (EPO), resembling what happens in the UK to the NHS, shows that the real goal is to crush the quality of the service and instead serve a bunch of rich and powerful interests, in defiance of the original goals of this well-funded (by taxpayers) organisation

  15. Microsoft Once Again Disregards People's Settings and Abuses Them, Again Pretends It's Just an Accident

    A conceited corporation, Microsoft, shows not only that it exploits its botnet to forcibly download massive binaries without consent but also that it vainly overrides people's privacy settings to spy on these people, sometimes with help from malicious hardware vendors such as Dell or Lenovo

  16. When the EPO Liaised With Capone (Literally) to Silence Bloggers, Delete Articles

    A dissection of the EPO's current media strategy, which involves not only funneling money into the media but also actively silencing opposing views

  17. Blogger Who Wrote About the EPO's Abuses Retires

    Bloggers' independent rebuttal capability against a media apparatus that is deep in the EPO's pocket is greatly diminished as Jeremy Phillips suddenly retires

  18. Leaked: EPO Award of €880,000 “in Order to Address the Media Presence of the EPO” (Reputation Laundering)

    The European Patent Office, a public body, wastes extravagant amounts of money on public relations (for 'damage control', like FIFA's) in an effort to undermine critics, not only among staff (internally) but also among the media (externally)

  19. Links 27/11/2015: KDE Plasma 5.5 Plans, Oracle Linux 7.2

    Links for the day

  20. Documents Needed: Contract or Information About EPO PR/Media Campaign to Mislead the World

    Rumour that the EPO spends almost as much as a million US dollars “with some selected press agencies to refurbish the image of the EPO”

  21. Guest Post: The EPO, EPC, Unitary Patent and the Money Issue

    Remarks on the Unitary Patent (UP) and the lesser-known aspects of the EPO and EPC, where the “real issue is money, about which very little is discussed in public...”

  22. Saving the Integrity of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Some timely perspective on what's needed at the European Patent Office, which was detabilised by 'virtue' of making tyrants its official figureheads

  23. A Call for Bloggers and Journalists: Did EPO Intimidate and Threaten You Too? Please Speak Out.

    An effort to discover just how many people out there have been subjected to censorship and/or self-censorship by EPO aggression against the media

  24. European Patent Office (EPO) a “Kingdom Above the EU Countries, a Tyranny With ZERO Accountability”

    Criticism of the EPO's thuggish behaviour and endless efforts to crush dissenting voices by all means available, even when these means are in clear violation of international or European laws

  25. Links 26/11/2015: The $5 Raspberry Pi Zero, Running Sans Systemd Gets Hard

    Links for the day

  26. EPO Management Needs to Finally Recognise That It Itself is the Issue, Not the Staff or the Unions

    A showing of dissent even from the representatives whom the EPO tightly controls and why the latest union-busting goes a lot further than most people realise

  27. Even the EPO Central Staff Committee is Unhappy With EPO Management

    The questions asked by the Central Staff Committee shared for the public to see that not only a single union is concerned about the management's behaviour

  28. The Broken Window Economics of Patent Trolls Are Already Coming to Europe

    The plague which is widely known as patent trolls (non-practicing entities that prey on practicing companies) is being spread to Europe, owing in part to misguided policies and patent maximalists

  29. Debunking the EPO's Latest Marketing Nonsense From Les Échos and More on Benoît Battistelli's Nastygram to French Politician

    Our detailed remarks about French brainwash from the EPO's media partner (with Benoît Battistelli extensively quoted) and the concerns increasingly raised by French politicians, who urge for national or even continental intervention

  30. The Sun King Delusion: The Views of Techrights Are Just a Mirror of EPO Staff Unions

    Tackling some emerging spin we have seen coming from Battistelli's private letters -- spin which strives to project the views of Techrights onto staff unions and why it's very hypocritical a form of spin


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