As a german I am ashamed that a german court will be abused for litigation as a means to compete, costing me both in taxes and in the higher price I have to pay for products in the end. And people wonder why the economy is stagnating in the western countries. All our money goes to taxes and lawyers.
It could be argued that trying the case in Dusseldorf is actually bringing money into the economy. Apple and Samsung are paying the lawyers. I suspect though their main legal counsel isn't in Germany, they are probably working with local lawyers as well. That's a big bill coming to a local firm.
On top of that you've got the hotels, restaurants, etc. etc. that are all making some money on the executives who are travelling to Dusseldorf.
Dusseldorf is making use of fixed cost assets (the courts and Judges salaries).
It's a shame that the lawyers are getting so much money while companies fight over stupid lawsuits like this, but I don't think it is costing local tax payers.
'Embarrassing revelation' indeed. How in the world is it possible that a German court can impose a EU-wide ban in a trial that contained what is basically fabricated evidence? How did this slip past Samsung's lawyers ( I remember this whole thing blowing up at the hands of the tech media, no? ) Didn't the court do its own, independent, impartial research into the matter? Why didn't the court compare some physical devices as opposed to basing a decision with such far-reaching consequences on some printed pictures?! Can somebody who has studied the law explain to me the benefit of allowing plaintiffs to have command over which court they want to litigate in? It feels self-defeating.
After reading this I'm also surprised how the author of this article can possibly assess that, "there’s also Dusseldorf, Germany, where judges are proving themselves quick [and] competent" after this incident that demonstrate just how patently (!) incompetent they really are. But I guess this is just testimony to the fact that actual evidence and reason are tertiary in a justice system that can be defeated by cherry-picking courts that are friendly to whatever the litigator's cause. How can the public trust in a judiciary framework that functions with this total lack of precision and attention to detail.
On a different note, and I'm sure nobody really cares but since Düsseldorf is my hometown I'd like to point out that it is spelled with an umlaut. If for some reason you can't do that, how about spelling it Duesseldorf :) That's how it's done in German if you can't use the umlaut for any reason (url's etc.). Is it common to just leave out diacritics when dealing with foreign vocabulary in the english language ?
It is understood that the judge involved in the German case made his ruling based on a physical examination of the two tablets, rather than relying Apple's paper submission alone. -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14542200
Thanks. Considering another hearing was scheduled after the court was informed that evidence was misrepresented I was assuming that it played a significant role in the courts decision. Maybe it's just a formality then...
"Is it common to just leave out diacritics when dealing with foreign vocabulary in the english language ?"
Yes. We don't have any diacritics in English or on our keyboards. English vowels can have a great many possible pronunciations, the ü in Düsseldorf becomes u in Duesseldorf and we pronounce it more or less the same as Germans (or at least as our accents let us!)
Other places become something entirely different: München->Munich, Hannover->Hanover, Saarbrücken->Saarbrucken (and we probably don't really know how to pronounce the 'aar' properly), Grafenwöhr->Grafenwoehr (though I've seen Graffenweir and a few other oddities), Köln->Cologne, Straßburg->Strasbourg etc.
Now there’s also Dusseldorf, Germany, where judges are proving
themselves quick, competent, and more often than not, erring on
the side of the patent holder.
My employer has recently also been sued by an American company in the Dusseldorf court for an alleged patent violation, so I can confirm the part of "erring on the side of the patent holder" from personal experience.
In this case, the dispute was over the production of a chemical substance and the other party alleged that this stuff simply cannot be produced without violating their patent. Our company's lawyers and chemists presented a huge mountain of experimental data and analysis stating a number of alternative ways to produce the stuff, including the method currently used by our plants in Asia. The court then took this information and asked the plaintiff "does this look reasonable to you?" to which they of course answered back "no way!" and hence essentially won the case. Their final verdict was basically an exact copy of the plaintiff's statements.
So I don't know about the part of being competent, but this court is basically issuing default judgements on the behalf of patent holders. Being there personally for some of the hearings, I also got the impression that certain lawyers are very well connected to this court, causing them to just wave certain cases through without too much consideration.
Our case ended with an out-of-court settlement and I subsequently lost track of the final outcome but it sure was an eye-opening experience for me just watching how it's done.
> Patent-holding plaintiffs won 63% of all infringement cases in Dusseldorf between 2006 and 2009, according to recent research by the Global IP Project, a series of studies initiated by the law firm Finnegan. That’s well above the global average of 35%
I'm surprised the global average is so low. I'd expect plaintiffs to win a significant majority of cases for the simple reason that plaintiffs are the ones that decide whether or not to sue.
14 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 43.1 ms ] threadOn top of that you've got the hotels, restaurants, etc. etc. that are all making some money on the executives who are travelling to Dusseldorf.
Dusseldorf is making use of fixed cost assets (the courts and Judges salaries).
It's a shame that the lawyers are getting so much money while companies fight over stupid lawsuits like this, but I don't think it is costing local tax payers.
After reading this I'm also surprised how the author of this article can possibly assess that, "there’s also Dusseldorf, Germany, where judges are proving themselves quick [and] competent" after this incident that demonstrate just how patently (!) incompetent they really are. But I guess this is just testimony to the fact that actual evidence and reason are tertiary in a justice system that can be defeated by cherry-picking courts that are friendly to whatever the litigator's cause. How can the public trust in a judiciary framework that functions with this total lack of precision and attention to detail.
On a different note, and I'm sure nobody really cares but since Düsseldorf is my hometown I'd like to point out that it is spelled with an umlaut. If for some reason you can't do that, how about spelling it Duesseldorf :) That's how it's done in German if you can't use the umlaut for any reason (url's etc.). Is it common to just leave out diacritics when dealing with foreign vocabulary in the english language ?
http://humor.beecy.net/misc/world/
Just leaving out the diacritics is for when English is feeling generous and doesn't feel like mangling or misspelling the words any further.
- Freiburg im Breisgau => Fribourg-en-Brisgau
- Aachen => Aix-la-Chapelle
- München => Munich
Yes. We don't have any diacritics in English or on our keyboards. English vowels can have a great many possible pronunciations, the ü in Düsseldorf becomes u in Duesseldorf and we pronounce it more or less the same as Germans (or at least as our accents let us!)
Other places become something entirely different: München->Munich, Hannover->Hanover, Saarbrücken->Saarbrucken (and we probably don't really know how to pronounce the 'aar' properly), Grafenwöhr->Grafenwoehr (though I've seen Graffenweir and a few other oddities), Köln->Cologne, Straßburg->Strasbourg etc.
In this case, the dispute was over the production of a chemical substance and the other party alleged that this stuff simply cannot be produced without violating their patent. Our company's lawyers and chemists presented a huge mountain of experimental data and analysis stating a number of alternative ways to produce the stuff, including the method currently used by our plants in Asia. The court then took this information and asked the plaintiff "does this look reasonable to you?" to which they of course answered back "no way!" and hence essentially won the case. Their final verdict was basically an exact copy of the plaintiff's statements.
So I don't know about the part of being competent, but this court is basically issuing default judgements on the behalf of patent holders. Being there personally for some of the hearings, I also got the impression that certain lawyers are very well connected to this court, causing them to just wave certain cases through without too much consideration.
Our case ended with an out-of-court settlement and I subsequently lost track of the final outcome but it sure was an eye-opening experience for me just watching how it's done.
I'm surprised the global average is so low. I'd expect plaintiffs to win a significant majority of cases for the simple reason that plaintiffs are the ones that decide whether or not to sue.