Oops.
Does this "poster" not understand the various laws that he's just broken by this blatant and slanderous attack? He or his employers are in such dire straits that they deem this reprehensible behavior appropriate? When the hammer drops, it's going to drop hard, and posters like this (and their aliases) better quickly find a country that no longer have an extradition treaty with the United States:
Does this "poster" not understand the various laws that he's just broken by this blatant and slanderous attack? He or his employers are in such dire straits that they deem this reprehensible behavior appropriate? When the hammer drops, it's going to drop hard, and posters like this (and their aliases) better quickly find a country that no longer have an extradition treaty with the United States:
| Msg. 183606 of 183616 Jump to msg. # |
Can you say REBUTTAL? I thought that you could. Here's one from TechLaw:
| Msg. 183617 of 183631 (This msg. is a reply to 183606 by repoman57.) Jump to msg. # |
I don't know all that much about the actual specifics of the technology Solomon claimed that Toyota infringed... It has to do with the Toyota Synergy Drive used in their Prius and Highlander models, so it's related to the regenerative transmission. But I do know, however, that the procedural postures of the two cases are completely dissimilar.
The Solomon case was brought as a complaint to the ITC (International Trade Commission). The ITC is an administrative agency. They are also more sympathetic to the "big" players who conduct more international trade... The International Trade Commission is more aligned with those who engage in large quantities of international trade... Go figure. Toyota sold 110,000 Priuses and 18,800 Highlanders in 2005, the year leading up to the complaint in February 2006. I don't think Solomon did anywhere near that much international trade.
In addition, that Solomon lost the administrative hearing portion of the action is not final. They will certainly petition for a writ of administrative mandamus and have the ITC's decision reviewed in the Federal District court. As such, they could still prevail. Administrative decisions are replete with mistakes and abuses of discretion by the ALJs who conduct the hearings. They are often biased, prejudiced against one or the other parties for political reasons or have improper personal or financial interests in the outcome of the case before them. Administrative agency hearings are also much less informal. The Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are only "suggestive" or "informational" in an administrative forum, and there are no formal Discovery rules whatsoever.
Time will tell whether Solomon prevails, but to come onto this board and make an assertion that the VCSY v. Microsoft action is similar to SOLM's administrative hearing against Toyota is sheer nonsense. And to say that Solomon "got its ass kicked" is indicative of an uninformed, hence ignorant, opinion. Solomon might still come out on top after review (appeal) of the hearing.
VCSY's case is an actual formally-pleaded patent infringement lawsuit initiated in a U.S. Federal Court district that is hostile to large corporate interests. All the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure strictly apply as do formal Discovery mechanisms. The rules of Discovery that may prove to be the very thing that keeps Microsoft from letting this case get too far.
If you were Microsoft, would you really want to be compelled to provide VCSY's attorneys with highly sensitive information and documents that detail exactly how your systems work? Not only would the code in question be exposed, but proprietary Microsoft code would also be exposed to VSCY, the opposition and perhaps more poignantly, the competition.
While anything is possible, it seems likely that VCSY's retained counsel team, having agreed to take the case on contingency, would have declined to prosecute the case if they didn't believe it to have merit.
In addition, the ALJ found, as part of his reasoning to decide against Solomon, that "there is no domestic (U.S.) industry involving said patent." He's saying that because there is no U.S. company relying on the patent in their current industry dealings, Toyota's use of it (or technology substantially similar to it) did not infringe it.
Whether you agree with his analysis or not, you must admit that the VCSY case is substantially different. VCSY and Microsoft are both domestic companies who are using the patent in their industry dealings... basically to make money with. In addition IBM is rumored to be using it as well, but by license I think.
As a last point, apparently at some time in the past around 1992, Solomon was in some sort of consultancy arrangement with Toyota and were instructing them in the ins and outs of their (Solomon's ) work in the regenerative transmission arena. With this in mind, it is altogether possible that in the 9 years before the Prius (with its allegedly infringing transmission technology) went on sale in the U.S., Toyota had independently developed their own transmission that was substantially similar to, yet different enough from Solomon's to just slip under infringement threshold.
I don't think VCSY was consulting for Microsoft and teaching them how their code worked.
I'll leave it at that for now... The 2 cases only share the similarity that they are both David & Goliath actions involving a small company taking on an industry giant and the fact that they both involve a patent dispute. The similarities end there.
Oh, BTW, naked shorting is illegal and your attempt to convince investors to engage in such conduct is known as "solicitation," also a crime.
The Solomon case was brought as a complaint to the ITC (International Trade Commission). The ITC is an administrative agency. They are also more sympathetic to the "big" players who conduct more international trade... The International Trade Commission is more aligned with those who engage in large quantities of international trade... Go figure. Toyota sold 110,000 Priuses and 18,800 Highlanders in 2005, the year leading up to the complaint in February 2006. I don't think Solomon did anywhere near that much international trade.
In addition, that Solomon lost the administrative hearing portion of the action is not final. They will certainly petition for a writ of administrative mandamus and have the ITC's decision reviewed in the Federal District court. As such, they could still prevail. Administrative decisions are replete with mistakes and abuses of discretion by the ALJs who conduct the hearings. They are often biased, prejudiced against one or the other parties for political reasons or have improper personal or financial interests in the outcome of the case before them. Administrative agency hearings are also much less informal. The Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are only "suggestive" or "informational" in an administrative forum, and there are no formal Discovery rules whatsoever.
Time will tell whether Solomon prevails, but to come onto this board and make an assertion that the VCSY v. Microsoft action is similar to SOLM's administrative hearing against Toyota is sheer nonsense. And to say that Solomon "got its ass kicked" is indicative of an uninformed, hence ignorant, opinion. Solomon might still come out on top after review (appeal) of the hearing.
VCSY's case is an actual formally-pleaded patent infringement lawsuit initiated in a U.S. Federal Court district that is hostile to large corporate interests. All the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure strictly apply as do formal Discovery mechanisms. The rules of Discovery that may prove to be the very thing that keeps Microsoft from letting this case get too far.
If you were Microsoft, would you really want to be compelled to provide VCSY's attorneys with highly sensitive information and documents that detail exactly how your systems work? Not only would the code in question be exposed, but proprietary Microsoft code would also be exposed to VSCY, the opposition and perhaps more poignantly, the competition.
While anything is possible, it seems likely that VCSY's retained counsel team, having agreed to take the case on contingency, would have declined to prosecute the case if they didn't believe it to have merit.
In addition, the ALJ found, as part of his reasoning to decide against Solomon, that "there is no domestic (U.S.) industry involving said patent." He's saying that because there is no U.S. company relying on the patent in their current industry dealings, Toyota's use of it (or technology substantially similar to it) did not infringe it.
Whether you agree with his analysis or not, you must admit that the VCSY case is substantially different. VCSY and Microsoft are both domestic companies who are using the patent in their industry dealings... basically to make money with. In addition IBM is rumored to be using it as well, but by license I think.
As a last point, apparently at some time in the past around 1992, Solomon was in some sort of consultancy arrangement with Toyota and were instructing them in the ins and outs of their (Solomon's ) work in the regenerative transmission arena. With this in mind, it is altogether possible that in the 9 years before the Prius (with its allegedly infringing transmission technology) went on sale in the U.S., Toyota had independently developed their own transmission that was substantially similar to, yet different enough from Solomon's to just slip under infringement threshold.
I don't think VCSY was consulting for Microsoft and teaching them how their code worked.
I'll leave it at that for now... The 2 cases only share the similarity that they are both David & Goliath actions involving a small company taking on an industry giant and the fact that they both involve a patent dispute. The similarities end there.
Oh, BTW, naked shorting is illegal and your attempt to convince investors to engage in such conduct is known as "solicitation," also a crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment