6 ms·

It seems quite reasonable for apple to avoid the renegade court. The court is known to intentionally violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the benefi

It seems quite reasonable for apple to avoid the renegade court. The court is known to intentionally violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the benefit of patent holders.[1] You must seek permission from the renegade judge in order to file Summary Judgement. "A party may move for summary judgment" They may not move for summary judgement, because the judge denies this in this court. "The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion." The court does not, because the judge will deny permission to file the motion that would have them explain why they are denying a summary judgement motion. I consider their willful breaking of the civil rules "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts". That is to say, I consider it judicial misconduct. The court is corrupt and broken by patent greed. Apple is right to avoid this den of misconduct. http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view_document.cgi?document=22071 http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view_document.cgi?docum... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-g...

dublo7 8y ago
Agreed. My previous company has to deal with trolls like this. They somehow managed a patent on turning 2d pictures into 3d panoramas which Google and iPhone do in the phones. We used software from Germany but since it violated the patent and we were tiny, boom lawsuit. This supreme Court ruling saved the company because we got it transferred to our state and the judge laughed them away. It would be like suing a grocery store because Microsoft word violated you're spell check patent. They only go after like guys who can't fight back.
- SEJeff 8y ago
  You might want to double check on "your" spell check patent :)
  - johnm1019 8y ago
    His spellcheck works fine, the grammar check is broken. :)
    - mjevans 8y ago
      The English language is broken by design and historical practice with respect to spelling (borrowing when it needed to steal) and grammar; though it may possibly not be as broken as other historical languages. Also, before you propose something like Esperanto; that language appears to be the antithesis of what I'd prefer as a replacement. The general design goals being more: * a 'RISC' (rather than CISC) style use of verbal pallet (pick the most common international phonetics, not a regional 'good enough' set) * purely phonetic spelling and pronunciation (one exact way to spell or say anything and vice versa) * never mutate words for any reason (no tenses, conjugation, etc) * no pronouns (only use proper nouns or descriptive selections) * eliminate filler where possible (the, a, similar non-informational words); this would be more of an accepted grammar shift. If there is a reason for that use then more distinct and/or obvious reasons for using a replacement mechanism should be apparent and taught in standard education.
      - linux2647 8y ago
        Maybe something like Toki Pona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona
        mjevans 8y ago
        It seems close to my goals, but violates one of the main ones related to lowering the entry barrier. All the letter (and sounds) used NEED to be pronounced, the same way, for native speakers of English, French, Russian, Spanish, and also various major (eastern) Asian languages. That means that when an otherwise uneducated (in languages/reading the squiggly version of words from a dictionary) user in one of those languages tries to read one of the words it should sound like only a slight accent, not a major flub. J should never have been used. "14 Latin letters, a e i j k l m n o p s t u w, are used to write the language. They have the same values as in the International Phonetic Alphabet:[38] j sounds like English y, and the vowels are like those of Spanish or Italian. Capital initials are used to mark proper adjectives, while Toki Pona roots are always written with lowercase letters, even when they start a sentence.[39]" -- Edit about the difference in vowels/etc: If there isn't a common ground in notation for symbols, then the writing for the language CAN'T map back to any existing phonetic symbol system either. It MAY use existing non-phonetic symbols and assign new uses for them, but it MUST NOT reuse such symbols that have conflicted mappings in existing languages.
  - yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
    For emphasis, use italicization, not quotation.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Is there any reason why those judges don't also laugh them away? What do those jurisdictions have to gain? You'd think that tech companies would have stronger lobbying than patent trolls. What incentives do courts have to side with patent trolls?
  - rixrax 8y ago
    URL: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 (Austin Myers) URL: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA (John Olivier) Above two YouTube videos I’ve been passing around in regard to sometimes peculiar nature of patents law in US and in particular that of eastern district of TX.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Juries favor trolls because patent trolls bribe Marshall, TX (East Texas district). Maybe judges are also swayed by the bribes. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-texas-town-that-patent-trolls-built-j34rlmjc https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-te...
  - SZJX 8y ago
    It's a local industry. They have a whole foodchain based on this and everybody stands to profit. I think in an earlier HN thread somebody also mentioned that in the early 20th century there were also towns that simply rob and kill any passer-by that would lodge in a hotel, with the sheriff etc. all complicit. In a sense this is typically American isn't it. Similar is how some towns would issue tickets for infringements such as jaywalking all the time without any oversight whatsoever.
    - mulmen 8y ago
      No, this is not typically American.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
monochromatic 8y ago
They violate the FRCP? Please explain. (Your link is broken.)
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  The EFF explains it well in the other link. It is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56. I quoted it twice. The Eastern District of Texas requires you to ask permission to file summary judgement, which the judge then can deny without explanation or reasoning. As such, while the rule says you "may move for summary judgement", this is not permitted in this court. It also says you get to hear the reason when the judge denies it. This you also do not get, as the judge will deny your ability to ask for it and the reason out of hand, and without explanation. So we can understand that the first line of rule 56 is a lie in the eastern district of texas.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    This is a very good explanation, but it might be missing one note for lay persons. Summary judgement is cheap (well, relative to litigation, that is), fast and occurs early in the development of the lawsuit before the most expensive steps take place. It is a direct competitor to just paying the trolls their settlement amount to stop bothering you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rudyfink 8y ago
-the article the OP is referring to discusses an old letter briefing requirement in the Eastern District of Texas. That requirement has not existed in patent cases in EDTX since 2016 (https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2016/07/letter-briefing-sources-for-more-information-on-the-practice.html https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2016/07/...). -As the "mcsmith.blogs" article mentions, the letter briefing process the EDTX had used was recommended by the Federal Judicial Center as a case management strategy in patent cases. -The suggestion that EDTX does not grant summary judgment for patent challengers is incorrect. It granted between ~10-30% of such challenges each year between 2008-2017. (source DocketNavigator - a data aggregator on patent cases). [as an aside, part of the legal standard for summary judgment is that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact." This can be difficult to meet in patent cases. For example, think of all the factual questions involved in determining whether a patent is invalid (e.g., has this specific thing ever existed before or is it obvious) or infringed (e.g., does this specific thing meet the limitations of this patent)].
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  It isn't that they didn't grant or deny, its that they had a 3rd category: FORBIDDEN from asking for summary judgement. This makes the 10-30% number of little meaning, because there's a whole of of summary judgements that got a forbidden marker. They're not in the set of summary judgements granted, because there was no motion. The motion never happened because they were forbidden from being filed. So what's the real percentage? Do we know how many summary judgements never got filed because the judges never let them get filed?
babypuncher 8y ago
Maybe I'm just really dumb, but can't anyone sued in this court just appeal to a higher court that isn't run by renegade turds?
- sirmarksalot 8y ago
  Not a lawyer, but I'd presume the reason a defendant would file for summary judgment would be to avoid the financial burden associated with a meritless case. If summary judgment is rejected, then making an appeal would likely be more expensive than just settling with the plaintiff.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  If you do not make an argument at first instance, you cannot appeal a judgement on the ground that it was not considered. So you're fighting in the lower court because you need to fight there. Remember, it's the fight that costs money, so no matter what you're always on the hook for something. The question ends up being are you on the hook for the cost of the fight or the cost of paying them off.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Maybe I'm just really dumb, but can't anyone sued in this court just appeal to a higher court that isn't run by renegade turds? Only after the expense of trial (and some people see the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals, as being run by renegades, too), and the appeals process is deferential to the trial court in a number of ways, so this is time consuming, expensive, and still doesn't undo completely any tilt from the trial court.

dublo7 8y ago

Agreed. My previous company has to deal with trolls like this. They somehow managed a patent on turning 2d pictures into 3d panoramas which Google and iPhone do in the phones. We used software from Germany but since it violated the patent and we were tiny, boom lawsuit. This supreme Court ruling saved the company because we got it transferred to our state and the judge laughed them away. It would be like suing a grocery store because Microsoft word violated you're spell check patent. They only go after like guys who can't fight back.

SEJeff 8y ago
You might want to double check on "your" spell check patent :)
- johnm1019 8y ago
  His spellcheck works fine, the grammar check is broken. :)
  - mjevans 8y ago
    The English language is broken by design and historical practice with respect to spelling (borrowing when it needed to steal) and grammar; though it may possibly not be as broken as other historical languages. Also, before you propose something like Esperanto; that language appears to be the antithesis of what I'd prefer as a replacement. The general design goals being more: * a 'RISC' (rather than CISC) style use of verbal pallet (pick the most common international phonetics, not a regional 'good enough' set) * purely phonetic spelling and pronunciation (one exact way to spell or say anything and vice versa) * never mutate words for any reason (no tenses, conjugation, etc) * no pronouns (only use proper nouns or descriptive selections) * eliminate filler where possible (the, a, similar non-informational words); this would be more of an accepted grammar shift. If there is a reason for that use then more distinct and/or obvious reasons for using a replacement mechanism should be apparent and taught in standard education.
    - linux2647 8y ago
      Maybe something like Toki Pona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona
      - mjevans 8y ago
        It seems close to my goals, but violates one of the main ones related to lowering the entry barrier. All the letter (and sounds) used NEED to be pronounced, the same way, for native speakers of English, French, Russian, Spanish, and also various major (eastern) Asian languages. That means that when an otherwise uneducated (in languages/reading the squiggly version of words from a dictionary) user in one of those languages tries to read one of the words it should sound like only a slight accent, not a major flub. J should never have been used. "14 Latin letters, a e i j k l m n o p s t u w, are used to write the language. They have the same values as in the International Phonetic Alphabet:[38] j sounds like English y, and the vowels are like those of Spanish or Italian. Capital initials are used to mark proper adjectives, while Toki Pona roots are always written with lowercase letters, even when they start a sentence.[39]" -- Edit about the difference in vowels/etc: If there isn't a common ground in notation for symbols, then the writing for the language CAN'T map back to any existing phonetic symbol system either. It MAY use existing non-phonetic symbols and assign new uses for them, but it MUST NOT reuse such symbols that have conflicted mappings in existing languages.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
  For emphasis, use italicization, not quotation.
ehsankia 8y ago
Is there any reason why those judges don't also laugh them away? What do those jurisdictions have to gain? You'd think that tech companies would have stronger lobbying than patent trolls. What incentives do courts have to side with patent trolls?
- rixrax 8y ago
  URL: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 (Austin Myers) URL: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA (John Olivier) Above two YouTube videos I’ve been passing around in regard to sometimes peculiar nature of patents law in US and in particular that of eastern district of TX.
- gowld 8y ago
  Juries favor trolls because patent trolls bribe Marshall, TX (East Texas district). Maybe judges are also swayed by the bribes. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-texas-town-that-patent-trolls-built-j34rlmjc https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-te...
- SZJX 8y ago
  It's a local industry. They have a whole foodchain based on this and everybody stands to profit. I think in an earlier HN thread somebody also mentioned that in the early 20th century there were also towns that simply rob and kill any passer-by that would lodge in a hotel, with the sheriff etc. all complicit. In a sense this is typically American isn't it. Similar is how some towns would issue tickets for infringements such as jaywalking all the time without any oversight whatsoever.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    No, this is not typically American.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

monochromatic 8y ago

They violate the FRCP? Please explain. (Your link is broken.)

kevin_b_er 8y ago
The EFF explains it well in the other link. It is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56. I quoted it twice. The Eastern District of Texas requires you to ask permission to file summary judgement, which the judge then can deny without explanation or reasoning. As such, while the rule says you "may move for summary judgement", this is not permitted in this court. It also says you get to hear the reason when the judge denies it. This you also do not get, as the judge will deny your ability to ask for it and the reason out of hand, and without explanation. So we can understand that the first line of rule 56 is a lie in the eastern district of texas.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  This is a very good explanation, but it might be missing one note for lay persons. Summary judgement is cheap (well, relative to litigation, that is), fast and occurs early in the development of the lawsuit before the most expensive steps take place. It is a direct competitor to just paying the trolls their settlement amount to stop bothering you.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rudyfink 8y ago

-the article the OP is referring to discusses an old letter briefing requirement in the Eastern District of Texas. That requirement has not existed in patent cases in EDTX since 2016 (https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2016/07/letter-briefing-sources-for-more-information-on-the-practice.html https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2016/07/...). -As the "mcsmith.blogs" article mentions, the letter briefing process the EDTX had used was recommended by the Federal Judicial Center as a case management strategy in patent cases. -The suggestion that EDTX does not grant summary judgment for patent challengers is incorrect. It granted between ~10-30% of such challenges each year between 2008-2017. (source DocketNavigator - a data aggregator on patent cases). [as an aside, part of the legal standard for summary judgment is that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact." This can be difficult to meet in patent cases. For example, think of all the factual questions involved in determining whether a patent is invalid (e.g., has this specific thing ever existed before or is it obvious) or infringed (e.g., does this specific thing meet the limitations of this patent)].

kevin_b_er 8y ago
It isn't that they didn't grant or deny, its that they had a 3rd category: FORBIDDEN from asking for summary judgement. This makes the 10-30% number of little meaning, because there's a whole of of summary judgements that got a forbidden marker. They're not in the set of summary judgements granted, because there was no motion. The motion never happened because they were forbidden from being filed. So what's the real percentage? Do we know how many summary judgements never got filed because the judges never let them get filed?

babypuncher 8y ago

Maybe I'm just really dumb, but can't anyone sued in this court just appeal to a higher court that isn't run by renegade turds?

sirmarksalot 8y ago
Not a lawyer, but I'd presume the reason a defendant would file for summary judgment would be to avoid the financial burden associated with a meritless case. If summary judgment is rejected, then making an appeal would likely be more expensive than just settling with the plaintiff.
ABCLAW 8y ago
If you do not make an argument at first instance, you cannot appeal a judgement on the ground that it was not considered. So you're fighting in the lower court because you need to fight there. Remember, it's the fight that costs money, so no matter what you're always on the hook for something. The question ends up being are you on the hook for the cost of the fight or the cost of paying them off.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Maybe I'm just really dumb, but can't anyone sued in this court just appeal to a higher court that isn't run by renegade turds? Only after the expense of trial (and some people see the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals, as being run by renegades, too), and the appeals process is deferential to the trial court in a number of ways, so this is time consuming, expensive, and still doesn't undo completely any tilt from the trial court.