Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,523
30,811


icloud_icon_text.jpg
FOSS Patents reports that a pending court case in Germany could have significant ramifications for Apple, with a potential injunction shutting down the company's iCloud service there over infringement of a Motorola Mobility patent being pegged as a $2.7 billion risk to Apple.

In brief, Motorola asserted last year that Apple's MobileMe service infringes upon a Motorola patent related to data synchronization. Motorola amended the suit to include iCloud once that service was introduced later in the year. While an official ruling on an injunction isn't due until February, Motorola has already won an initial default judgement involving the patent and FOSS Patents reports that the presiding judge is not looking terribly favorably on Apple's defense so far.
The court doesn't appear to buy any of Apple's defenses at this stage. It may still change mind until the ruling, which is scheduled for February 3, 2012, 9 AM local time, but if it had had to rule today, I have no doubt that Apple would have lost.
If Motorola wins its case and an injunction is granted, Apple could be forced to pull all of its products in Germany that contain the infringing iCloud integration. It is typical in German courts to require winning parties to post bonds in order to guarantee repayment of lost income should the defendant win an appeal of the ruling, and Apple has asked that Motorola be required to post a 2 billion euro ($2.7 billion) bond in this case.
The court was wondering whether that hefty amount truly reflects the economic damages Apple would suffer from enforcement, given that the iCloud is only one Apple offering and doesn't correspond to the entire value of its products. But Apple's lawyers insisted that an enforcement against its product sales in Germany could result in damages of that magnitude.
The judge raised the possibility of Apple developing a workaround for iCloud to avoid infringing Motorola's patent, but Apple's lawyers pressed their case that the risk to Apple's business was indeed still severe.

Apple obviously has a vested interest in setting as high a bond as possible, forcing Motorola to put up a significant amount of money if it wishes to press forward with an injunction. The figure represents a substantial commitment on Motorola's part and makes clear that Apple will move to recover that money should an injunction be granted and later overturned, thus increasing Motorola's own risk in the proceedings. But while Apple may be artificially inflating its risk somewhat, it does still have to justify the figure to the court and is clearly working to do just that.

Article Link: Apple Claims Potential Injunction Against iCloud Could Result in $2.7 Billion Loss
 
Last edited:

ChazUK

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,393
25
Essex (UK)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.7; en-gb; GT-I9100 Build/GRJ22; CyanogenMod-7) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

There is potential that Google would have taken ownership of Motorola by the end of this year or early next year at the latest. Would that have any implications at all?
 

flash84x

macrumors regular
Aug 5, 2011
189
132
I'm so sick of this patent **** on every side. How the **** do you patent a process such as synchornization? I could possibly understand the methods used to acheive the synchornization, but the entire process itself? What the ****.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.7; en-gb; GT-I9100 Build/GRJ22; CyanogenMod-7) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

There is potential that Google would have taken ownership of Motorola by the end of this year or early next year at the latest. Would that have any implications at all?

I could see Google let it ride for no other reason that to get some massive leverage on Apple and force Apple to back off on their proxy battle on Android.


I'm so sick of this patent **** on every side. How the **** do you patent a process such as synchornization? I could possibly understand the methods used to acheive the synchornization, but the entire process itself? What the ****.

You are just reading the over view. Chances are really good that the patent is pretty specific and they are suing over that.
Remember Apple opened this can of worms and started MAD. No one trust them not to come after them next.
 

FNi

macrumors member
Jul 18, 2011
57
26
all i can say is that germany has some crazy laws and judges
It's not so much that they have 'crazy' laws and judges, it's that due to Germany's extensive history of automotive design and manufacture, many of their patent and copyright laws have been well established and tested in court.

This is why claimants prefer filing in Germany, as many lawyers feel that same history makes German courts favour the claimant over the plaintiff in software and design disputes.
 

rivertrip

macrumors member
Jul 9, 2010
46
2
Apple's claim might have unintended consequences, such as increasing the royalties paid to Motorola if the court decides Motorola has an enforceable patent.
 

Mad-B-One

macrumors 6502a
Jun 24, 2011
789
5
San Antonio, Texas
all i can say is that Germany has some crazy laws and judges

I think you don't understand how it works. First of all, it is not the judges, it's the law. If I sue you and want that you stop selling your goods, that is all fine and dandy. But what if the court finds I was wrong? You lost business and I might not be able to pay your losses. For this reason, you estimate what an injunction until a final ruling would cost you and I have to make sure that I have that kind of money to pay you if and when I loose. If I win, you would have to pay me reparation for infringing my patent. It's rather simple.

And why is that logical? Because I don't have to do an injunction. I can just sue you and let you sell your goods until the ruling and I cash in then. This prevents that you can disturb someone's business just with injunctions. Filing an unjust injunction can cost you a ton of money this way and you cannot just walk away after causing the damage and say: "Sorry that you couldn't sell, I can't pay you though!"
 

richman555

macrumors 6502
Jan 23, 2010
450
214
Collegeville, PA
I wonder what the specific patent is? and when has Motorola implemented any of this?

It must have been such a smashing success that I have never heard about it.
 

TMar

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2008
1,679
1
Ky
I haven't look far into this one yet but 'data synchronization'!? Really? A lot of these old patents handed out left and right by people who didn't really understand the technology. There are far too many technology patents that are far to generalized and over encompassing.
 

something3153

macrumors 6502
May 20, 2011
404
0
I haven't look far into this one yet but 'data synchronization'!? Really? A lot of these old patents handed out left and right by people who didn't really understand the technology. There are far too many technology patents that are far to generalized and over encompassing.

I'd say the same about most, if not all, of the patents Apple is throwing around.
 

gdimarco

macrumors newbie
Apr 21, 2010
4
0
YES, you are correct!

Apple own the majority of those :)

Go Motorola!! Go Google!!

I haven't look far into this one yet but 'data synchronization'!? Really? A lot of these old patents handed out left and right by people who didn't really understand the technology. There are far too many technology patents that are far to generalized and over encompassing.
 

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
Wouldn't 2.7 billion be enough to come up with an alternative solution that does not infringe or design around the problem to not infringe. (rhetoric question) :rolleyes:
 

alent1234

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2009
5,688
170
I haven't look far into this one yet but 'data synchronization'!? Really? A lot of these old patents handed out left and right by people who didn't really understand the technology. There are far too many technology patents that are far to generalized and over encompassing.

at least in the US if a patent is too broad like the new apple location services patent then it should be easy to shoot it down with prior art
 

TMar

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2008
1,679
1
Ky
at least in the US if a patent is too broad like the new apple location services patent then it should be easy to shoot it down with prior art

Yes, which take litigation and that shouldn't be a cost someone should have to bear to make a product. The system is flawed from the ground up.
 

bozzykid

macrumors 68020
Aug 11, 2009
2,430
492
Wouldn't 2.7 billion be enough to come up with an alternative solution that does not infringe or design around the problem to not infringe. (rhetoric question) :rolleyes:

I doubt even Apple's lawyers believe that figure. It's just a made up number trying to get a high bond.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.