US Judge Rules Against German Microsoft Injunction 272
angry tapir writes "In an unusual case, a U.S. judge has ruled that Motorola cannot enforce an injunction that would prevent Microsoft from selling Windows products in Germany, should a German court issue such an injunction next week. Microsoft asked the judge for the ruling in anticipation of an injunction that a German court is expected to issue related to a patent infringement suit that Motorola filed against Microsoft in Germany. The suit centers primarily on Motorola licenses that have been declared essential to the H.264 video standard. The German injunction is expected on April 17."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US thinks their jurisdiction is the whole world -- they think copyright, software patents, making laws after something happened rather than before (Common law), screaming out on a marketplace of ideas to determine the best ... is a universal thing and awesome.
But hey, if you're big, you don't need to care to listen.
It's a fact (Score:3, Funny)
It's a fact that Germany will never be Germany without the United States of America
Without the United States of America, Germany will be known as "Deutschland"
You certainly don't want that, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on, mods, that was funny! Sheesh, some people have no sense of humor. I always thought Deutschland was a hilarious name for a country. Probably not back in WWII though...
As to this ruling, I think the judge, plaintiffs, and defendants are the douches here.
And the moderators are the wooshes. Or is that wooshies?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Jeg kan nu godt lide at kalde landet for "Tyskland" :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Because the USA singlehandedly defeated the Nazis ...
I don't know of very many American historians who believe that we "singlehandedly" defeated the Nazis. But if we hadn't joined WW2, the outcome would very likely have been very different. Not just because of the American military, but because of American *production*. We built (and provided to our allies -- including Russia) megatons of critical supplies.
FWIW, I've never seen an alternate history of WW2 that had a good outcome when America didn't get
Re:It's a fact (Score:5, Interesting)
OH, and as for the Russians (or if you're going to be historically accurate, the "Soviets" -- i.e., the Soviet Union): yeah, their military bounced back and probably could have defeated the Nazis by themselves . .. .
IF they had the food. After perestroika and glasnost, a number of former Soviet leaders came forward to publicly state that American supplies during WWII, especially food, made a huge difference. Remember, the Nazis had overrun and had occupied most of "Russia's" food basket. They were starving. That's why, as soon as the USA became involved, Stalin requested two things: (1), that the USA and UK open a second front against Germany ASAP to help take the pressure off of them, and (2), FOOD. Lots and lots of food. Tons of food.
Which we supplied.
This really is off-topic; we were discussing an American judge issuing an injunction in advance of a German court's decision -- but I was specifically addressing the historical inaccuracies in your post. Now I'm off to work.
Re: (Score:2)
But "WWII" didn't truly become a *world war* until the late 1930s.
No shit, it started in 1939.
Re: (Score:2)
it started in 1939.
GP is probably alluding to the Second Sino-Japanese war that started in 1937. That was a part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, of which we are so familiar.
~Loyal
Re: (Score:2)
We 'hate' the USA mainly because of your government, and partly because of your more vocal (and mad sounding) media types, it is difficult to see the picture we get of the USA's foreign policy from within the US, in that same way that I suspect I have a very biased picture of the UK's foreign relations
The people are an entirely different matter, the majority I have met have been lovely people (with the usual small number of exceptions)
Don't worry it is the same the world over, and has very little to do with
Re:It's a fact (Score:4, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. I hate them too, but I have no illusions that I'm in some kind of vast majority. Most people here only hate one side of the government (either the Democrats or the Republicans), and blame the other side for all the problems, instead of realizing that the two parties are really one in the same for the most part. Most people happily watch the media too, and get all their information from it (look how many people watch Fox News). And finally, look at how people vote: they vote for the mainstream candidates that the media encourages them to vote for, and they ignore the candidates that the media works hard at obscuring.
Obviously, not all Americans are like this, but a majority certainly are, or else we wouldn't have the people in office that we do.
Re: (Score:3)
> as Australians we owe a lot to the USA ...
You MORE than made up for it with Kylie Minogue. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Hatred of America is understandable. (Being an American, it puzzles me
As an American, it doesn't puzzle me one bit. It can be summed up in one word, hubris.
Re:It's a fact (Score:5, Insightful)
>but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster
And of course, the massive amounts of aid you yourself receive after disasters from other nations don't count ?
Do you even know how much aid the USA received after Katrina ? Not just money but many other types of aid - for example the Dutch sent you a whole bunch of engineers with the kind of particular expertise in water and flood management that their dyke system requires and you didn't have to help fix things.
Sorry, if the best thing you can say in your favor is something every other not-ruled-by-an-evil-dictator country on earth does then you're really nothing special.
On the other hand, after the Japan quake facebook and twitter were filled with Americans complaining about your government sending aid to the Pearl Harbour guilty. Conveniently forgetting that:
1) Japan has been a US ally for decades now
2) A nuclear bomb is probably more than adequate justice for a harbor- you gave them two
3) After Katrina Japan was the single largest monetary benefactor giving aid to YOU in YOUR hour of need.
I don't hate Americans - hell I've been to America, I loved San Francisco. There's a lot of things wrong with your culture and your country but there's a lot of things wrong with all the others too.
I don't think you deserve all the hate you get, but you certainly don't deserve the adoration you want either.
Re: (Score:3)
So, he's complaining about the number of idiots posting he saw on a site designed to filter out all posts but what you are looking for, on which he looked specifically for idiots posting? Am I reading that correctly?
Sort of like someone I know non Christian) who went to see a production of Jesus Christ Superstar and liked it for the most part, except for all of the crosses in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Hatred of America is understandable. (Being an American, it puzzles me, but that's for another argument. I've never claimed we were perfect -- anything but -- but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster, because that doesn't fit in with YOUR preconceptions about how "evil" we are.)
I think it can be summed up by the Monty Python sketch where the PLA are discussing what the Romans have done for them.
Most large empires went in, kicked the hel
Re: (Score:3)
The one thing that you Limey's can't forgive is us kicking King George out and replacing him with our own leaders, thus beginning the downfall of the British Empire as exemplified by that most famous quote of Kipling "Far Called Our Navies Melt Away" that referred to the collapse of the Emprire.
In regards to the OP topic, Gemany is going to make their decision and damn what this idiot judge has decided because it's a German Court and he has no jurisdiction there nor does the German Judge have jurisdiction h
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to think that if Motorola does something in Germany, they will pay the consequences here in the US. Of course the US judge doesn't expect his ruling to have any effect on what happens in Germany. This is the US seeking to control what plaintiffs do in other countries.
Is this an example of the US over-reaching? Oh yeah. But this is about trying to get Motorola, a company with presence in the US, to behave in a fashion which suits the interests of the businesses in the US... or at least the ones who have been contributing the most to government election campaigns.
Things are getting more heated and more dirty. Also, very, very interesting.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge has definitely overstepped the mark here, in my opinion.
Motorola is seeking a limitation in another jurisdiction, under different rules, not the local jurisdiction under the local rules.
By seeking to prevent Motorola from partaking in legal action in another jurisdiction, the judge has certainly limited Motorolas freedom to operate.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is definitely an issue for an appeals court or the supreme court to rule on. But how far does that go? After all, companies and individuals are routinely held to account for operating within the unspoken rules of business in China which is all about bribes and corruption being built right into the culture and expectations of all involved.
So it's not a question of practice, but where the line should be drawn isn't it?
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The line should be drawn at illegal practices, in my opinion - however, this particular case has nothing to do with illegal practices.
Motorola are doing something completely legal in both the US and Germany, they are just doing it in German jurisdiction. The US Judge is threatening Motorola in US jurisdiction for something that isn't illegal in either place.
The US Judge is trying to trump the authority of the German judge in his own jurisdiction. Thats overstepping the mark.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
My reading of this is that the German lawsuit was filed after the U.S. lawsuit, expressly because Motorola didn't particularly like the way the U.S. Lawsuit was going, aka Motorola was Forum Shopping after the fact and hoping to use that result to pressure Microsoft to give in the original case.
Practically I don't see that the U.S. Court had any choice but to slap them down hard to discourage that as a tactic. Don't like how your case is going here? Sue in France!
Pug
Re: (Score:3)
There's no court that has jurisdiction of the world. Yes, if we're in an US court we could negotiate a worldwide license to end the legal problem here and in every other jurisdiction, but if we don't reach an agreement then I would think US courts decide for the US, German courts decide for Germany and every other country for itself. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola could sue in German court over damages caused by the US court by interfering with the German court. The lawyers are going to win, that's for
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't like how your case is going here? Sue in France!
Which is absolutely fine, as any rulings of the French trade courts will only apply in France, not the United States. Contrary to what Microsoft claim, they doesn't need to license any E.U. patents for territories outside of the E.U. - the jurisdiction of E.U. patents ends at the E.U. borders.
Would you be happy if the E.U. courts began to make judgements against Microsoft etc., and expressly said that the jurisdiction of those judgements wasn't just within the E.U., but also covered the U.S.? It is a blatant attempt to extend the jurisdictional territory of national patents onto other nations, which is certainly not allowed under the existing patent treaties. What if Chinese courts decide that they have the jurisdiction to rule on U.S. patent cases?
Re: (Score:3)
Buzz!!! Wrong Statement on the EU Patents not being enforcable in the United States. Due to Treaties, EU Patents hold the same validity as U.S. Patents do in the United States. Otherwise you are talking the exact same thing that China is being accused of doing; which is not recognizing patents from anywhere other then China. Pot meet Kettle. Simply put, if EU Patents weren't recognized, U.S. Patents wouldn't be recognized either, meaning an all out trade war as companies would steal any and every good idea
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
How do I protect my patent internationally?
Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Read the article again. The suit was filed in a US court before Motorola then went to Germany and file a suit for patent infringement with two key FRAND patents in this case (they are asking MS for %2.25 of it's sales price/unit). The judge's position is that Motorola is seeking to use the threat of injunction in Germany to try to force MS to settle for less reasonable terms before the U.S. judge makes his decision. The judge agreed that Motorola was attempting to pre-empt a decision by the U.S. court to their advantage.
The meat of the article is here:
Motorola is a global company, and they have vested interests in the U.S.. Given Motorola's apparently willingness to extort companies on F/RAND patents, I don't have much pity for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Given Motorola's apparently willingness to extort companies on F/RAND patents, I don't have much pity for them.
Does it say the lawsuit is against Microsoft? The same Microsoft that gets paid $5 for every Android device sold in the world while they had 0 participation in making it? They also made no claims that Android uses any of Microsoft IP. What they said was: pay us or we use our vast patent portfolio and a small army of layers to make you pay. That's called extortion. I say good luck Motorola, go after them in every jurisdiction! Microsoft's lawyers need to be kept busy or they get out of hand and start raping
Re: (Score:2)
After all, companies and individuals are routinely held to account for operating within the unspoken rules of business in China which is all about bribes and corruption
That is a different thing - bribery of foreign officials is explicitly illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so we agree then that the US has jurisdiction over Motorola and can tell Motorola what to do even in foreign nations. The question now just becomes whether Motorola's conduct in Germany is actually against US law. You suggest it doesn't, but that's ultimately for this court and its superior courts to work out.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Funny)
>The judge has definitely overstepped the mark here, in my opinion.
Germany uses the Euro these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Motorola and Microsoft are both US companies, making them subject to US laws. That means, for example, that if they try to bribe people abroad, they get punished in the US. And it means that if they try to circumvent a US judge's authority by playing legal games in other jurisdictions, a US judge can impose sanctions on those US companies.
The principle is pretty simple: you are subject to a nation's laws if that nation actually has an ability to enforce those laws against you. Since Motorola has plenty o
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not a case of protecting a US company. It's the judge protecting his court, as a similar case is due in front of him there next month.
So the US judge would rather not have a German court decide on the issue before he gets his chance to as preserving US court power is more important than abiding by international law.
But to add a twist - Motorola is now under investigation by the EU over 'standards-based patents' following complaints by Apple & Microsoft.
http://www.gfmag.com/latestnews/latest-news-ol [gfmag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I would agree with that take on the US, I would also add - it's nothing specific to the US.
Much like politicians say 'bullying' is wrong in school yards, they just do it themselves as far as smaller or economically weaker countries are involved.
The US do it to Germany (like in this case), Germany do it to the Swiss (re tax law; despite there being tax havens INSIDE the EU, or outside of Europe - they target Switzerland; or noise pollution at airports - Germans should suffer noise from German airp
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly because these are US companies and we have trade agreements.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully this sets a precedent and I say to the judge, thank you.
International patent agreements are one thing but they should be decided upon within the legal systems of the head office of various corporations or in the country the patent was first filed.
Instead we have patent wars by international proxy, tieing up the various legal systems around the world be it, say, Motorola vs MS in Germany or Apple vs Samsung in Australia.
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
What the judge has basically said is sort your shit out in your own country (US) and don't waste the German court's time. Settle the patent dispute in your own country first and negotiate global licensing based on sales per unit in each country.
Currently we have an abuse a dozen or so tech mega-corporations trying out patent-sharing agreements in each country they do business. Extortion failed in 1 country? We'll try it out in the other 195-odd countries throughout the world and we'll find a sympathetic judge.
This isn't about the sovereignty of the German nation, it's international corporations misusing the courts around the world. My point was, US companies suing each other based on US patents and a tit-for-tat dispute in foreign courts.
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be so but the point is still this, if a patent case fails in one country, but not in another, then in that country where it hasn't failed, the company making the patent infringement claim has demonstrated that the company being targetted has broken patent law in that particular country.
The judge is now saying "I don't give a fuck about whether an American company breaks the law in another country, I only care if they play by our standards". That's not right, Microsoft has to play by German standards in Germany, not US standards so sorting it out at home basically says "Make a deal in the US to agree to ignore the fact either of you may be breaking the law in Germany". By saying this the judge is again trying to get US companies to not work according to German law. This might sound like no big deal, but what happens when Motorola and Microsoft are forced into a license deal that adheres to US standards then a German only company comes along and similarly infringes on the same patent? That German only company then has to deal with Motorola under only German law and not the potentially more favourable US law on the topic at hand - effectively the German company would be at a distinct disadvantage in brokering a licensing deal compared to Microsoft because the Microsoft deal was forced by a US judge to be carried out under conditions more favourable to Microsoft than the German law would've offered them.
It may seem annoying that companies can go on fishing expeditions but it doesn't matter because each country has it's own laws and so that's precisely what should happen. It's not quite as bad as you make it seem though, as these things only work if the companies in question have a major business prescence in the country in question. It's not all 195 countries then for example, but only those where such law is worth pursuing which is a figure probably no more than 10 to 20 at most. Germany makes sense because it's a country in which Microsoft has one of it's two European headquarters and I believe a decent manufacturing prescence too, certainly my XBox was made in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft - a Multinational company based in the USA
Google - who wholly owns Motorola - a Multinational company based in the USA
These are not strictly speaking American companies, they are multinationals with offices in many countries, which is why there is a lawsuit in Germany at all ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or of course it could just be that USA consider themselves world police.
That seems more likely.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading the article, it seems the US court is ordering Motorola not to use the German legal system to block sales of Windows in Germany. So if Motorola were to do it anyway, I guess German customs would still enforce the injunction, but Motorola mangement in the US would risk punishment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So if Motorola were to do it anyway, I guess German customs would still enforce the injunction, but Motorola mangement in the US would risk punishment.
I'm just curious, as to what law Motorola would have broken by pursuing legal action in another country against another US company, that would allow for its management to be punished? And what punishment would that be?
I mean, I didn't even think laws that can punish management existed at all in the US.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Brannigans Law.
Re: (Score:2)
Off the top of my head, contempt of court. A US court is ordering a US company not to persue another US company in a court in another nation.
Now, whether or not the ruling of the court is appropriate is a matter for the court of appeals.
Re: (Score:3)
But what if these are for German Patents?
The judge also pointed out that Motorola's offer included both U.S. and international patents.
Would you want the validity of US patents to be handled by Chinese courts?
Re: (Score:2)
If Chinese and US courts make conflicting rulings so that a company can't comply with both, it has to decide which of the two nations it wants to continue to operate in and withdraw from the other. Doesn't seem very complicated.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
In Germany, if the court grants you an injunction it is not automatically enforced immediately. The winning party needs to explicitly enforce it.
Now a US court decided that the company Motorola may not enforce this injunction should it win it, since there are ongoing actions that have not been decided (like, whether the patent in question is actually invalid). So if Motorola were to enforce this injunction it would have an unfair disadvantage.
So the US court has not interfered with German courts: it only ruled what the company Motorola may do should it win this battle in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Germany, if the court grants you an injunction it is not automatically enforced immediately. The winning party needs to explicitly enforce it.
Now a US court decided that the company Motorola may not enforce this injunction should it win it, since there are ongoing actions that have not been decided (like, whether the patent in question is actually invalid). So if Motorola were to enforce this injunction it would have an unfair disadvantage.
So the US court has not interfered with German courts: it only ruled what the company Motorola may do should it win this battle in Germany.
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ?
God damn the US, if only we could blast that shit country into deep space.
Re: (Score:2)
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ? God damn the US, if only we could blast that shit country into deep space.
...Because Motorola is an American company, and is therefore obligated to follow US law. They also have to follow German law: but they don't have to enforce the injunction.
Re: (Score:3)
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision?
Because this is a US court regulating the acts of a US company[*] in similar ways that the US regulates the acts of its citizens in other countries.
(Any US citizen wishing to dispute that claim may try to do so by travelling to Spain and having friendly sex with a 13 years old, which is legal under Spanish law [wikipedia.org].)
[*] According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI) is an American data communications and telecommunications equipment provider that succeeded Motorola Inc. following the spin-off of th
Reasons why they can restrict the injunction (Score:2)
The US case started before DE case.
Motorlola proposed worldwide 2.25% license fee at the US court (which MS refused ... obviously).
I do not think these are valid. Each country has different laws. There cannot be a common resolution of a dispute pressed by one court over the whole word. In the worst case, (when companies do not come to agreement) they will sue each other in every jurisdiction separately. I think that is OK.
Re:Reasons why they can restrict the injunction (Score:4, Informative)
Another funny thing is that Microsoft [win7vista.com] fled from Germany for the Netherlands fearing patent issues related to Motorola. This is raising quite a few eyebrows over in the EU already.
The article explains it (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, so can someone explain to me why a US court thinks it has any effect in Germany? Or is this some kind of 'threat'/'international business' thing that has some legal basis for multinational companies?
From the source article:
The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.
So, basically, they are arguing they have jurisdiction because the dispute originated in the US - and it sounds like the US justice system feels that the Motorola suit was more retaliation against Microsoft for bringing up the case than a preplanned and poorly timed execution.
Personally, however, I believe the US would never tolerate another country making the same claim. Instead, the US would claim sovereign rights and not bow to any court, national or international (yes, the US has refused to recognize the proceedings of the International Criminal Court - showing how much it believes in having other powers meddle in its governance). Thus the US should respect the sovereignty of other nations to manage their own legal proceedings since we have no jurisdiction over Germany.
They're not German companies, afaik (Score:2)
A US Judge telling two US companies what they can do, afaik. Seems legit to me. Just because I take you to another country to beat you with a stick, doesn't mean you can't sue me in US court when we return.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, so can someone explain to me why a US court thinks it has any effect in Germany? Or is this some kind of 'threat'/'international business' thing that has some legal basis for multinational companies?
Probably because it involves two US based companies embroiled in a dispute in US court as well and therefore the US court has the power to issue an oder to the two parties. Motorola first rolled the dice in a US court, and then tried to get a second roll in Germany as a hedge against losing the first. A US judge said "no can do."Had Motorola not started in a US court this would not have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--
All that is necessary for Apple to triumph is for Google men to do nothing.
Re:Divide and Conquer (Score:5, Funny)
Or they can get an injunction granted in Germany preventing the injunction granted in the USA from preventing the injunction granted in Germany.
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since I am seeing this same reaction in several threads, I'll do the legwork and post it in each one... From the source article:
The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.
However, I do agree - in no way should the US be able to dictate to another country their legal system beyond the standard actions of imposing sanctions and/or embargoes. After all, I don't think anyone would say a state that violates human rights (for example, only certain types of citizens are legally defined as human and the rest are 'livestock' or 'property') should be allowed to operate without consequence. This means petty reasons could be used as justification, for to deny a country a right to apply an embargo or sanction would also be a violation of a state's sovereign rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The US isn't dictating anything to the German court. The German court can merrily decide whatever it wants to do. But if Motorola acts on the German court's decision, then Motorola is violating the US court's order, and the US court has the means and the right to enforce its order against Motorola.
And don't believe for a moment that German courts work any differently; they too try to impose German law on foreign entities if they have any control over assets or persons associated with those foreign entitie
Re: (Score:3)
Since I am seeing this same reaction in several threads, I'll do the legwork and post it in each one... From the source article:
The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.
Again, I disagree with this viewpoint - it is just an explanation of why they are trying to override German sovereignty
Re: (Score:3)
So the timeline is:
1) Motorola brings up possible patent issues with Microsoft in Germany. For the moment we'll set aside if they're valid/invalid or if this is real or patent trolling. But Motorola said, "Hey, Microsoft, that's ours."
2) Possible phase of negotiations in Germany.
3) Microsoft doesn't like how the negotiations are going, so they sue Motorola in US court.
4) Motorola says "I don't think so" and sues Microsoft in German court for violation of German patent law.
5) US judge says "well Microsoft su
Jurisdiction? (Score:2)
Oh right, forgot about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Degree on his wall and I can assure you
There ain't no court where a lawyer can enjoy his ruling in Deutschland.
Now he's quick with an injunction and he's fast on the standards and in America he is the law
He don't know a word of jurisdiction, everybodys safe when Microsoft's near.
Put a case on him now, in front of the court, showing us where the patents are
There's one thing you must understand, Microsofts the law in Deutschland.
He was part of a firm, h
Misleading summary translated (Score:2, Insightful)
The Judge ruled that: Motorola shall not enforce an injunction in Germany.
The Judge did not rule that: a German court can't enforce an injunction in Germany.
Jurisdictions remain intact.
Re: (Score:2)
The Judge ruled that: Motorola shall not enforce an injunction in Germany.
The Judge did not
Question:
When was the last time a private entity given the right to enforce a legal injunction?
Re: (Score:2)
By not following through with their legal efforts to obtain said injunction?
Re:Misleading summary translated (Score:5, Informative)
The way this works in Germany is that the court gives you a paper that says can order an injunction and what terms apply (in most cases you must post a bond). You then can take that paper to the Gerichtsvollzieher (marshal / bailiff) which then executes the injunction. The interesting point is that these two steps are independent and you can chose not to execute the injunction.
So the judge ordered Motorola not to execute the injunction. How that is interfering with German sovereignty is a different and debatable point.
Re: (Score:2)
Motorola's actions outside US are still outside US court's jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see. As private companies are not allowed to enforce anything anyways in Germany, this has no effect. The way it works is that the private company has to ask the police and/or customs to enforce the injunction. Anything else would land them in legal hot water, up to and including the ones trying to "enforce" things landing in prison.
motorola enforce? stupid judge just wants easy mon (Score:3)
if the court judgement comes, would motorola need to enforce it? wouldn't it be the court that enforces it.
but the us judge made this decision just because if he didn't, he would have been unnecessary and would have to judge some real cases that matter but where there isn't as much money involved.
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK USA is the only country that treats companies as real people. In Turkey and again AFAIK our regulations a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the court cannot enforce anything. It can order the police and/or customs to enforce things, but that is it. Courts have very little direct power in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
RootStrikers.org
Apple (Score:2)
This is ABSURD (Score:2)
This is absurd!
It starts with a case where someone is sued to using patents that HAVE to be used when you want to implement a standard accordingt to that very standard.
It continues with an US court activly trying to force a company into disrespect of legitimate court verdicts.
And it turns into hybris when that court wants their findings to be respected outside the boundaries of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Since I am seeing this same reaction in several threads, I'll do the legwork and post it in each one... From the source article:
The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.
I agree with you, Germany is a sovereign country - the US should restrict its recourse to "we will engage in sanctions if you do this", not "our courts find you must do this".
Re: (Score:2)
Since I am seeing this same reaction in several threads, I'll do the legwork and post it in each one... From the source article:
The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.
Now we have two courts, in diferent legislations, ruling in the same case? Absurdity++
I agree with you, Germany is a sovereign country - the US should restrict its recourse to "we will engage in sanctions if you do this", not "our courts find you must do this".
A company needs to respect the laws of the country it has business in. This should be a basic rule, as that is what both US and Germany are expecting when a company from anywhere in the world starts business there.
One Wonders... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think companies go to other countries to sue because they multinational forces now. Motorola isn't just in the US with branch offices in other countries; instead, like most corporate entities, they have full legal recognition in many nations. The same applies to Microsoft. The same applies to Apple. To quote Pink Floyd's The Dogs of War: "One world, it's a battleground" - you kick your global opponents where ever you can.
Re: (Score:2)
German Patents...
The judge also pointed out that Motorola's offer included both U.S. and international patents.
Would you want the validity of US patents to be handled by Chinese courts?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody "handles" the validity of patents. Each court can rule as it chooses, and companies have to figure out to comply. If US and Chinese courts make conflicting rulings, the company may have to withdraw from one or the other nation, or it may have to split. There is no guarantee that you can always legally operate a single company in two nations.
And why do they think the Germans care? (Score:2)
It is quite simple: If somebody tries to sell these things, they will get impounded and there may be fines for the ones selling them. U.S. law? The Germans could not care less.
Bad Move (Score:4, Insightful)
Typical MS arrogance. I know german judges, having both worked with them and been to court (usually as the plaintiff) in quite a few business-related cases. The judge in the german case is going to be pissed. MS is either stupid like shit in the "don't piss of the judge" department, or they already see the case in the german court as lost.
Jurisdiction, anyone? (Score:2)
How does a US court expect to enforce its decision in Germany?
Are we going to invade Germany on Microsoft's behalf and make them buy Windows at gunpoint? And is that business model patented?
Re: (Score:2)
FRAND is a Farce (Score:3)
This case centers on Motorola's demands for two FRAND (Free, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) patents on H.264. The idea behind FRAND is that it allows the use of patent-encumbered technology in public standards, without the fear of lawsuits hobbling creative and technological advancement. FRAND has been championed within standards bodies by companies like Microsoft and Motorola, who promised that FRAND would be just as easy as disallowing patent-encumbered technology. H.264 has been one of the seminal cases of FRAND, with an enormous showdown at W3C between all the heavyweights. Theora was dropped because they promised this would not happen with H.264.
This case makes it very clear that FRAND is a farce. You can have open technology, which anyone can use, or you can have encumbered technology. Pretending that encumbered technology can work like open technology because a corporation makes a vague promise to be "reasonable" to its competitors is absolute folly.
Re:Better article (Score:5, Informative)
You do know that Florian Muller is on Microsoft's payroll. Are you as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sitting here, stunned, at having read the words "Microsoft" and "reasonable" in the same sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if each company is ordered not to enforce its rulings, then neither can enforce the rulings without getting penalized by some court. What's the logical problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't wait to see it, I can't wait to see a seething German judge issuing an arrest warrant for US judge in contempt.
Other than reducing the vacation travel options for the US judge, this would have no effect.
Alternatively, and somewhat less hilariously, the German judge might just pass the order banning the sale of Windows phones (I believe) and order the authorities to enforce it, leaving Motorola with clean hands in the US court.
At which point MS will complain that they're losing $100M/yr in Germany, and the US court will tell Motorola to write them a check for 3x that.
The only way that the German court has any real power here is if the business done by MS in Germany is much larger than the business done by Motorola in the US. Otherwise any penalty they impose will just be undone on the other side of the ocean.