"Unless I am seriously misunderstanding what happened here, which is possible, there was no mutual settlement here. Lodsys was allowed to unilaterally settle. Most of Apple's arguments were just ignored. "
You are seriously misunderstanding. There is a mutual settlement between Lodsys, and the actual defendants in the lawsuit.
Apple is not a party to the lawsuit except as an intervenor. If the parties to the lawsuit want to settle, that's their call.
If Apple wants to sue Lodsys for tortuous interference or something else, that's fine, it's a different suit.
Otherwise, what would happen is you'd end up with a lawsuit that was against 7 companies, none of whom were still in the action.
Your suggestion is essentially that Apple should be able to prevent the actual defendants and plaintiffs from ending the lawsuit, because Apple has a problem with one of the plaintiffs.
If the defendants wanted to keep fighting, Apple's motion should probably have been granted. However, except in circumstances involving non-parties (like class actions), once folks want to settle, intervenors can't really object, as it should be.
Note that the article is also some really bad reporting.
Apple's motion to intervene in the lawsuit was actually granted:
"SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - Apple has satisfied each of the four requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2). The Court finds that permissive intervention is also appropriate under Rule 24(b). To avoid any potential prejudice to Lodsys rights under the License Agreement such intervention shall be and is hereby limited to the issues of license and patent exhaustion. Apples Motion to Intervene is GRANTED-IN-PART to the extent and as specified herein. Motions terminated: 4 MOTION to Intervene filed by Apple, Inc.. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/12/12. (ehs, ) Modified on 4/12/2012 (ch, )."
So Apple was given a right to be heard as an intervenor, but once the underlying jurisdiction terminated due to the settlement, they have no standing, and all of their motions are moot.
Note that apple could have prevented this outcome. If they had indemnified app developers by agreement (instead of disclaiming all liability), they likely would have been impleaded, which would have made them an actual defendant.
You are seriously misunderstanding. There is a mutual settlement between Lodsys, and the actual defendants in the lawsuit.
Apple is not a party to the lawsuit except as an intervenor. If the parties to the lawsuit want to settle, that's their call. If Apple wants to sue Lodsys for tortuous interference or something else, that's fine, it's a different suit.
Otherwise, what would happen is you'd end up with a lawsuit that was against 7 companies, none of whom were still in the action.
Your suggestion is essentially that Apple should be able to prevent the actual defendants and plaintiffs from ending the lawsuit, because Apple has a problem with one of the plaintiffs.
If the defendants wanted to keep fighting, Apple's motion should probably have been granted. However, except in circumstances involving non-parties (like class actions), once folks want to settle, intervenors can't really object, as it should be.
Note that the article is also some really bad reporting. Apple's motion to intervene in the lawsuit was actually granted: "SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - Apple has satisfied each of the four requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2). The Court finds that permissive intervention is also appropriate under Rule 24(b). To avoid any potential prejudice to Lodsys rights under the License Agreement such intervention shall be and is hereby limited to the issues of license and patent exhaustion. Apples Motion to Intervene is GRANTED-IN-PART to the extent and as specified herein. Motions terminated: 4 MOTION to Intervene filed by Apple, Inc.. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/12/12. (ehs, ) Modified on 4/12/2012 (ch, )."
So Apple was given a right to be heard as an intervenor, but once the underlying jurisdiction terminated due to the settlement, they have no standing, and all of their motions are moot.
Note that apple could have prevented this outcome. If they had indemnified app developers by agreement (instead of disclaiming all liability), they likely would have been impleaded, which would have made them an actual defendant.
They don't get to have their cake and eat it too.