Google has filed a motion to have the Android OEM cases put forth by Rockstar moved to California courts from Texas. Their motives in doing so are quite obvious to anyone who knows about the differences in political opinions between Texas and California. It is unfortunate, however, that these differences in political opinion manifest in overwhelmingly influencing court decisions one way or another. Texas is seen as a haven for the patent holder, whereas California is a market that encourages innovation and is ultimately harsher against patent claimants.
New evidence has come out revealing that Google had knowledge that they might have been violating these patents. This reduces the strength of Google's claim that they assumed the invalidity of these patents. However, if Google can still prove that these Rockstar patents are invalid, then they will not have to pay an increased penalty.
Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/nortel-told-google-in-2010-it-infringed.html
New evidence has come out revealing that Google had knowledge that they might have been violating these patents. This reduces the strength of Google's claim that they assumed the invalidity of these patents. However, if Google can still prove that these Rockstar patents are invalid, then they will not have to pay an increased penalty.
Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/nortel-told-google-in-2010-it-infringed.html
Hi Akshay! Your post are interesting and intelligent, but you should try to be more consistent. Your comments are valuable and contribute to discussion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, please avoid difficult to read font color (see http://akshaypatent.blogspot.com/2014/03/week-4-germany-does-it-right-google-vs.html). You occasionally lack references (for example, http://akshaypatent.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-eu-patent-trolls-paradise.html).
At this point, it just seems automatic that companies being pulled into Texas for a patent infringement should change the location to California or the court where their company is situated. From my understanding, California's court is not biased, but I wonder if Google has enough entitlement in the California's court that it might be able to overturn the penalty decision.
ReplyDeleteThere is always that worry that Google, being headquartered in California, would have some advantage here. I still feel like there has to be a better way to get a neutral location for these lawsuits. I'm not sure if I agree with there is no bias in California courts. There is a mentality and a culture that comes from the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. In some ways, it's as prevalent as the not so tech savvy culture of the Eastern District of Texas. To some extent I do agree that smartphone lawsuits make sense to be tried in California since many people here are familiar with the technologies in question, but at the same time many people here also have very progressive views when it comes to open sourcing and sharing patents. The views of individuals do not always reflect the views of corporations. If only there was a way to find a truly unbiased location for trials, at this point the only places I can come up with are Antarctica or the moon.
DeleteYeah, it's definitely a significant issue that the regions can have such a enormous influence on the case. It's pretty hilarious though that the culture of the respective places can affect so strongly the outcome of the cases.
DeleteIt is unbelievable the extent to which the courts in Texas and California differ from each other. It will be interesting to see if there are some federal changes made in order to alleviate the amount of attention given to the location of the trial, rather than the substance itself. I could see major patent cases moving to a 3rd location, where there are less preconceived notions about who will "obviously" win.
ReplyDeleteOne way to offset the discrepancies between various court districts is to screen juries for complex cases. In most cases, in which the issue is relatively easy to understand, it makes sense to randomly select juries. For example, a case of petty theft does not require an educated audience to judge. However, for cases involving patents, especially in technology, a randomly selected jury is ineffective. Screening juries for education, intelligence, and experience may seem unfair, but it is more unfair to allow a group of average citizens to judge complex cases.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's unfair to allow average citizens to judge patent cases. And I wonder if there is work around for that, so juries can be screened for a specific patent case. It does seem unfair at the point, but the fundamental of judging a murder and a patent violation is very different. It does make sense to take this into account.
DeleteThere's a lot of stuff going on in here. First there's the issue of a court case in Texas, which in certain districts leads to a biased decision as we learned in class. Then there is the issue that Google knew about patent infringement. I think it's interesting now that the battle might turn to why the patent in the first place should not even be patent. It's interesting to what extent companies and people are willing to go to win and prove a point. This brings me back to my original posts in this class which dealt with how patents allow us to inspire innovation. It seems here that we are just hindering innovation, and simple playing a messy game. I would very much like to know how this case turns out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the idea that it's quite sad how political polarity within a state can affect the outcome of a case so heavily. What, then, is the point of a jury if they will all inevitably be biased in some way?
ReplyDeleteTo address something that you mentioned: "New evidence has come out revealing that Google had knowledge that they might have been violating these patents. This reduces the strength of Google's claim that they assumed the invalidity of these patents." I don't necessarily agree with this, since Google could have realized that they were violating a certain patent but also vehemently believed that patent itself was invalid. Of course, this puts them in the wrong, but it does not necessarily worsen their claim. Thoughts?