Judge who tossed Apple-Motorola suit questions need for software patents
Posner, who is on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, spoke with Reuters and shared his thoughts on the intellectual property war currently underway in the heavily competitive smartphone market. The judge questioned whether software patents are necessary, because developing software requires much less of an investment than pharmaceutical companies have in creating a successful drug.
"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
The 73-year-old judge volunteered to oversee the Apple-Motorola case. When the trial began, he used a court-issued BlackBerry, but he eventually switched to an Apple iPhone that he only uses for e-mail and phone calls to his wife.
As Apple and Motorola argued in court, Posner was an outspoken critic of Apple's tactics. In May, he accused Apple's lawyers of making "frivolous" and "untimely" filings.
Posner said he was actually looking forward to overseeing the case between Apple and Motorola, but he couldn't have a trial "just for fun," and he felt he had no choice but to toss out the lawsuit. Last month, the two-year conflict was brought to an end by Posner, who also ruled that Motorola could not seek an injunction against the iPhone because it had pledged to license its own patents to other companies under fair and reasonable terms.
Judge Richard A. Posner, via Wikipedia.
Posner is the most-cited U.S. legal scholar of the 20th century, according to intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. He said the appeals judge is also well known for being "outspoken."
Posner said he understands why technology companies, particularly those who make smartphones, have turned to litigation in an attempt to gain an edge over their competitors. Even the high legal fees are a "small expense" for a company like Apple, which had $110 billion in cash and securities as of the end of the March quarter.
"It's a constant struggle for survival," Posner told Reuters. "As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal."
With the Apple-Motorola case in Chicago tossed, the next big courtroom showdown in the smartphone patent wars will be the trial between Apple and Samsung. This week, those two companies pared down their patent infringement claims against one another in preparation for the start of their trial in California on July 30.
189 Comments
Hmm...see, I think judges aren't always necessary in court cases...especially those with litigation between tech companies.
How can you be so smart and so wrong? Patents are the lifes-blood of innovation. Without them, we'd eventually be ruled by oligarchs, since power would centralize as competition dropped away. Patents mean the pirates only win sometimes, not always. Doh!
He may be right, but his editorializing on the subject he is litigating makes me think we might be better served by his turning in his judicial robes in exchange for a Congessional seat.
How can you be so smart and so wrong? Patents are the lifes-blood of innovation. Without them, we'd eventually be ruled by oligarchs, since power would centralize as competition dropped away. Patents mean the pirates only win sometimes, not always. Doh!
Why wouldn't copyright laws fill the need quite nicely if the concern is truly "copying"?
"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
I didn't read the entire text of the speech, but this line is troubling in the context of his just having thrown out a patent-related case. It's not a judge's job to decide what laws we "really need" or should have. It's his job to fairly apply the laws that we do have. This certainly raises the question as to whether he stepped over that line in this case. The fact that he "only uses his iPhone for mail" is somewhat troubling too. Doesn't sound like the best guy to understand the implications of software innovation. It's also troubling that he didn't get the Apple-Motorola case by the luck of the draw but went out of his way to take the case in the first place. He used his influence to take a high-profile software patent case; he dismisses said case; and then goes on the record saying that he doesn't believe we actually need software patents. Well, perhaps we don't need judges legislating from the bench either.