[othermaciej]

For one thing, he correctly predicted that in the Nokia vs Apple case, Apple would end up paying Nokia a royalty, which seems to be what actually happened.

For another, his predictions of the judge's likely reactions to damages requests and requests to suppress evidence in Google vs Oracle seem to be largely playing out as predicted.

I do get the feeling sometimes from reading his stuff that he may have anti-Google biases, but his facts and predictions are generally accurate and his analysis seems informed.

He's predicted that it's likely that Apple will be admitted as an intervenor in the Lodsys case, let's see if that one comes true. Likewise he predicts that Motorola Mobility will likely suffer an ITC import ban due to the Microsoft case (if not settled before then). Let's see what happens on that one.

[Kylekramer]

So, the one definitive prediction he had so far is that a patent case would end in a royalty? Forgive me if I don't take that as a sign of an insightful commenter.

[othermaciej]

I gave two examples, you picked out one, and you appear to assume that this is the only time Muller has been right about anything. Somehow, it does not seem to me like you are on a dispassionate quest for truth here.

However, just in case you are: Apple and Nokia were both suing each other over various patents, and had various defenses. Often such cases end in a cross-licensing deal with little or no money changing hands. He correctly assessed that in this case Nokia had the upper hand and that Apple would end up paying. That conclusion was not obvious to casual observers at the time.

[joelhaus]

I've noticed that Florian Muller is more skilled at covering his own behind, rather than predicting patent litigation outcomes.

Every prediction he makes is hedged with a statement about how the alternate outcome is possible "even though many don't believe it's likely". Whatever his preferred outcome, he will make the stronger case for that.

[othermaciej]

Hedging your predictions with qualifying statements is something that any good lawyer will tend to do, and also just plain intellectually honest since predictions about legal processes are rarely 100% certain.