PDA

View Full Version : Google Signs Off on Motorola Lawsuit Seeking Injunction Against iPhone 4S and iCloud




MacRumors
Jan 25, 2012, 02:47 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/25/google-signs-off-on-motorola-lawsuit-seeking-injunction-against-iphone-4s-and-icloud/)


Motorola Mobility has filed a new lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Apple, asserting six patents against the iPhone 4S and iCloud. As noted (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-authorized-motorola-to-seek.html) by FOSS Patents, the merger agreement between Google and Motorola Mobility requires the company to get Google's permission before asserting "any Intellectual Property Right in any new Action". As a result, this lawsuit is the closest Apple and Google have come to direct litigation.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/01/motorola_mobility_logo_wordmark-500x64.jpg


All six patents are asserted against the iPhone 4S, with four ('119, '006, '531, and '161) asserted against iCloud. The patents Apple is charged with violating, as assembled by FOSS Patents (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-authorized-motorola-to-seek.html), are:
U.S. Patent No. 5,710,987 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,710,987.PN.&OS=PN/5,710,987&RS=PN/5,710,987) on a "receiver having concealed external antenna"

U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5754119.PN.&OS=PN/5754119&RS=PN/5754119) on a "multiple pager status synchronization system and method"; Motorola is asserting the European equivalent of this patent against Apple in Mannheim, with a decision (that will likely be favorable for Motorola (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/11/motorola-fairly-likely-to-win-german.html)) scheduled for Friday of next week (February 3, 2012)

U.S. Patent No. 5,958,006 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,958,006.PN.&OS=PN/5,958,006&RS=PN/5,958,006) on a "method and apparatus for communicating summarized data"

U.S. Patent No. 6,101,531 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,101,531.PN.&OS=PN/6,101,531&RS=PN/6,101,531) on a "system for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless client to communication server for filtering data transferred from host to said wireless client"

U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,008,737.PN.&OS=PN/6,008,737&RS=PN/6,008,737) on an "apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device"

U.S. Patent No. 6,377,161 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,377,161.PN.&OS=PN/6,377,161&RS=PN/6,377,161) on a "method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information"On its face, the lawsuit is fairly unexceptional -- one of many lawsuits flying around the mobile sector -- but as Google needed to sign off before it could be filed, it could be a signal of the direction Google intends to head if its proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility is successful.

Article Link: Google Signs Off on Motorola Lawsuit Seeking Injunction Against iPhone 4S and iCloud (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/25/google-signs-off-on-motorola-lawsuit-seeking-injunction-against-iphone-4s-and-icloud/)



TMar
Jan 25, 2012, 03:02 PM
Just think what the world would be like it Ford patented 4 door cars, car trunks, four wheels on a horseless carriage and the steering wheel. It would be the five wheel three door volt!

I hate generalized patents!

Jayse
Jan 25, 2012, 03:12 PM
Just think what the world would be like it Ford patented 4 door cars, car trunks, four wheels on a horseless carriage and the steering wheel. It would be the five wheel three door volt!

I hate generalized patents!

And for that very reason, i don't see Google & Motorola being the victors here...

X5-452
Jan 25, 2012, 03:48 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I have a feeling that the only people who will lose during all these lawsuits are us - the users.

CylonGlitch
Jan 25, 2012, 03:50 PM
This one "5,754,119" boggles my mind how it could ever be allowed. First off it talks specifically and only about pagers. We aren't using pagers here. But I can see where they say that the phone uses pager type features to communicate the user status (such as if they are online, or if they are busy, etc). That, I guess is a reasonable assumption to make. But wait, this patent was filed in 1995; wasn't this same functionality already done via IRC that has been around since 1988? Why yes, it has. So how the heck could someone patent it after it was already invented and in use by someone else?

Oddly enough, this is the patent that seems to be upheld in Europe! These patents are just stupid and out of control!

BC2009
Jan 25, 2012, 03:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I have a feeling that the only people who will lose during all these lawsuits are us - the users.

This whole thing will clear up soon. We may start to see these companies resuming talks of cross-licesning this year. The only thing Apple should be pursuing vehemently is trade-dress violations by Samsung (i.e.: Samsung packaging and accessories looking just like Apple's). These sort of things are misleading to the consumer. The whole iPad design patent thing is not going to do anything but stall Samsung since the iPad looks like a large iPhone, just like the JooJoo, just like the Galaxy Tab. Apple's design patent on iPhone does not extend to tablets, but the current round of tablets are an obvious leap from iPhone design. Obvious leaps from prior art pretty much preclude IP protection.

polaris20
Jan 25, 2012, 04:17 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does your user agent string say you posted from an iPhone using iOS 5.0.1 while you are claiming to be posting from a Droid Incredible?

Probably because he's trolling.

daxomni
Jan 25, 2012, 04:20 PM
Communists!!?? Where do we begin? A private company is communist? Doesn't that sort of...er...possibly... go against the idea of communism. Wait, why am I even questioning this. Since the poster clearly has no notion of what communism is, he/she is using the word to mean "bad people", or perhaps "doodyhead". Communist!!??
Presumably he meant fascists instead of communists?

ravenvii
Jan 25, 2012, 04:22 PM
Just think what the world would be like it Ford patented 4 door cars, car trunks, four wheels on a horseless carriage and the steering wheel. It would be the five wheel three door volt!

I hate generalized patents!

Not *that* much different. The patents would expire ~1935 and it'll be all smooth sailing onwards.

HangmanSwingset
Jan 25, 2012, 04:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does your user agent string say you posted from an iPhone using iOS 5.0.1 while you are claiming to be posting from a Droid Incredible?

If the iPhone 3GS and the Droid Incredible are secretly the same thing, I have to get rid of my phone. Now.

jluster
Jan 25, 2012, 04:29 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does your user agent string say you posted from an iPhone using iOS 5.0.1 while you are claiming to be posting from a Droid Incredible?

Likely because most Android devices have a browser that can (and often will) spoof other UAs. I am writing this on a Samsung Galaxy SII, what does my UA say? :)

Shrink
Jan 25, 2012, 04:38 PM
Presumably he meant fascists instead of communists?

You are undoubtedly correct.:D

Either way, just a wee bit hyperbolic, n'est pas. ;)

rmwebs
Jan 25, 2012, 04:45 PM
And for that very reason, i don't see Google & Motorola being the victors here...

I'm guessing you'll also agree that Apple shouldn't win cases where they claim people copies their black border, or their corners then?

----------

I have my iPhone, and I love my iPhone, because it's a great piece of equipment and Apple treats me well, and always has. Google, however, has just prompted me to pull out all the information and sellable data on my fledgeling G+ profile. I won't be using the services of a company trying to force me to use SEVERAL of their products that I don't want to use.

How exactly are they FORCING you when you have an iPhone? Did they FORCE you to get G+? No. You OPTED to get it, knowing full well that they had rights to use that data. Just like Apple has rights to use any and all data they collect on you. So does pretty much every_single_website you visit with a terms of service that you agreed to.

----------

Likely because most Android devices have a browser that can (and often will) spoof other UAs. I am writing this on a Samsung Galaxy SII, what does my UA say? :)

IIRC Mercury for iOS lets you change your user agent. Nice try tho ;)

hdfonts
Jan 25, 2012, 06:00 PM
Motorola forgot to patent that their devices touch air, therefore no other device can touch air. They could've potentially sued everyone on the planet.

k1121j
Jan 25, 2012, 06:14 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

seriously a patent on a consealed antenna. the stupid thing if from 1995 I think we need patents but come on the is redicolus

marksman
Jan 25, 2012, 06:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

It is clear to me googles mobile future is with Motorola and a new os. Android is essentially eol now. Sure it may see one or two major updates but google will eventually pull their support.

Rocketman
Jan 25, 2012, 07:46 PM
Apple has a file that establishes without doubt Google promised, and breached, an agreement not to compete with Apple in fields their CEO was privy to at BOD meetings.

This has two distinct problems for Google.

1. Anti-trust violation for agreeing

2. Fraud and treble damages for agreeing and breaching

Catch 22-22.

To top it all off, the political layer. Apple has facilitated this government's political goals. Google has been adverse to them. It seems Google is being spanked soon.

Free advise to Google. Instruct Motorola to cease all litigation against this defendant. Admit to, and apologize for, the breach re. Apple. Offer a $10+ royalty per Android unit to Apple.

Keep focused on your business(es).

That will make Apple and the government your sudden friend. This country is nearly all politics at this time. Learn well.

Apple's 4/5 antenna is exposed.

KnightWRX
Jan 25, 2012, 07:58 PM
Apple has a file that establishes without doubt Google promised, and breached, an agreement not to compete with Apple in fields their CEO was privy to at BOD meetings.


Where the hell did you get that silly idea from ? :confused:

We're going to need a citation here.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 25, 2012, 08:10 PM
Where the hell did you get that silly idea from ? :confused:

We're going to need a citation here.

I see it as some one making stuff up.
The most likely thing was Apple wanted Google on its BOX to keep an eye on them and try to steal stuff from the android project. Something that was well known in the tech world that Google bought it up with a plan to make an OS.
I also believe Erica kept him well clear of the Android project and did not get involved in the iPhone at Apple. Plus it is not lkk, the bod are involved or even know what is going on day to day or large amount of details of any project. They know the basics and help guide the ship but not the ones running it.

BaldiMac
Jan 25, 2012, 09:17 PM
I see it as some one making stuff up.
The most likely thing was Apple wanted Google on its BOX to keep an eye on them and try to steal stuff from the android project.

Speaking of making stuff up.

charlituna
Jan 25, 2012, 09:45 PM
[/COLOR]

seriously a patent on a consealed antenna. the stupid thing if from 1995 I think we need patents but come on the is redicolus

At that point in time having a conceal antenna was new and novel. Now it is common place. So Apple might be able to get the patent invalidated on the grounds of that common place notion, plus has Motorola sued every company that has such an antenna or just suddenly now (yes sometimes the 'honey badger' is a valid defense in a patent case) and can Apple argue that concealing the antenna is just a natural step in the evolution.

Same with notions in the other patents. Motorola is also suing over a patent that they claim is being used in iCloud. is it the idea or the actual tech that is the same. is anyone else using the same idea and were they sued for violating the same patent. Is this idea the natural evolution of some prior idea? Going with this, did iTools, dotmac or MobileMe use the same idea/tech and did Motorola file a suit over that. Was this patent before or after those services (which iCloud could be said to have been derived from)

aristotle
Jan 25, 2012, 09:53 PM
These patents are ridiculous. The iPhone 4 and 4S antenna is not concealed, it is on OUTSIDE of the phone.

I have to laugh at all of the down voting of comments on here by lurking fandroids. I also find it amusing that I can see the usual suspects posting here in support of Motorola. They also happen to be largely on my ignore list.

They either work for Google or are paid to post on here by Google.

aristotle
Jan 26, 2012, 01:30 AM
I'd like to hear logical and coherent explanation from the defenders of Android/Google/Motorola as to why this join action is not illegal collusion between two independent parties given that the buyout has not yet been approved? I doubt we will ever see one but one can alway hold out hope.

Meanwhile we can all be entertained by the fact that we have been overrun by Android aficionados on a site dedicated to covering "Apple" technology.

Do you see a lot of Apple product users going on to Android or windows fan sites trying to stir up trouble. No, because many of us have full time jobs in the technology industry so we don't have a lot of spare time to harass people on sites covering technology that supposedly does not interest us.

I stayed until close to 7pm tonight adding a system cleanup tool to the build at work and kicking off a QA Release package build before heading out the door. I usually work 9am-5pm.

I suppose people without "real" jobs have to find something to entertain themselves.

Oletros
Jan 26, 2012, 02:05 AM
I'd like to hear logical and coherent explanation from the defenders of Android/Google/Motorola as to why this join action is not illegal collusion between two independent parties given that the buyout has not yet been approved? I doubt we will ever see one but one can alway hold out hope.

Meanwhile we can all be entertained by the fact that we have been overrun by Android aficionados on a site dedicated to covering "Apple" technology.

Do you see a lot of Apple product users going on to Android or windows fan sites trying to stir up trouble. No, because many of us have full time jobs in the technology industry so we don't have a lot of spare time to harass people on sites covering technology that supposedly does not interest us.

I stayed until close to 7pm tonight adding a system cleanup tool to the build at work and kicking off a QA Release package build before heading out the door. I usually work 9am-5pm.

I suppose people without "real" jobs have to find something to entertain themselves.

Can you explain why there is illegal collusion?

And you know that someone can have products from different companies, don't you?

I can have an iaphone and a windows PC or I can have a MacBook and an Android phone. The wonderful world of choice

reefoid
Jan 26, 2012, 03:17 AM
Apple has a file that establishes without doubt Google promised, and breached, an agreement not to compete with Apple in fields their CEO was privy to at BOD meetings.

This has two distinct problems for Google.

1. Anti-trust violation for agreeing

2. Fraud and treble damages for agreeing and breaching

Catch 22-22.

What on earth are you on about? I've never heard of such an agreement, do you have evidence? And if such an agreement does exist, and there was anything dodgy about it at all, then since the agreement would have been between Apple and Google, then Apple would be as responsible as Google.

Of course, this is all irrelevant since this seems to be a non-fact you've pulled out of thin air.

I'd like to hear logical and coherent explanation from the defenders of Android/Google/Motorola as to why this join action is not illegal collusion between two independent parties given that the buyout has not yet been approved? I doubt we will ever see one but one can alway hold out hope.

Its not a joint action, its Moto v Apple. I think you'll find this is normal practice in buyouts, no illegal collusion. Google are committing themselves to a large investment, they have a right to protect themselves against any future risk by requesting authority is sought before such actions start.

Amazing Iceman
Jan 26, 2012, 05:17 AM
A great example of companies that recently released a market failure and now are roaming without a good product to release, so they decide to sue based on whatever excuse they can come up with.
Motorola could have sued long ago; not just Apple, but several other companies. They are just using their last cards in the patent game.

It's all just plain ridiculous!

Oletros
Jan 26, 2012, 05:46 AM
A great example of companies that recently released a market failure and now are roaming without a good product to release, so they decide to sue based on whatever excuse they can come up with.

Motorola could have sued long ago; not just Apple, but several other companies. They are just using their last cards in the patent game.



It's all just plain ridiculous!

The original suit is from 2.010.


Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

KnightWRX
Jan 26, 2012, 06:17 AM
At that point in time having a conceal antenna was new and novel. Now it is common place. So Apple might be able to get the patent invalidated on the grounds of that common place notion, plus has Motorola sued every company that has such an antenna or just suddenly now (yes sometimes the 'honey badger' is a valid defense in a patent case) and can Apple argue that concealing the antenna is just a natural step in the evolution.

If Motorola has the patent before any prior art can be shown, then no, Apple can't have it invalidated on those grounds. And you can sit on a patent as long as you like, there is no provisions in patent law in the US that you must enforce your patents or that you can't enforce them selectively. You're thinking trademarks.

Basically, if all the claims in the patent (not just the abstract about "concealed antennas") hold up, Apple will have to pay or implement their antenna differently (no software fix for that!), just like Samsung/HTC had to modify their software once found in infringment of Apple's patents.

----------

I'd like to hear logical and coherent explanation from the defenders of Android/Google/Motorola as to why this join action is not illegal collusion between two independent parties given that the buyout has not yet been approved?

I'm not a defender of anyone (neither Google/Android/Motorola or Apple or Nokia or RIM or Samsung), but I'll answer you : How is it collusion ? Apple are suing Motorola, Motorola is counter-suing. They need approval from Google because of the buyout contract and got it.

What more are you looking for here ?

----------

I can have an iaphone and a windows PC or I can have a MacBook and an Android phone. The wonderful world of choice

Or I can have an Apple phone, an Apple laptop, and still objectively look at all this patent stuff and realise that all there is right now is chaos because everyone is suing each other and no firm decisions have been reached.

They all make good and bad moves, no one player is better than another in all of this.

kdarling
Jan 26, 2012, 06:27 AM
This whole thing will clear up soon. We may start to see these companies resuming talks of cross-licesning this year. The only thing Apple should be pursuing vehemently is trade-dress violations by Samsung (i.e.: Samsung packaging and accessories looking just like Apple's). These sort of things are misleading to the consumer.

Apple has already run into court pushback on most trade dress, because they never advertised shapes or packaging. As everyone knows, Apple ads are all about using apps, instead of case or packaging appearance.

At that point in time having a conceal antenna was new and novel. Now it is common place. So Apple might be able to get the patent invalidated on the grounds of that common place notion, plus has Motorola sued every company that has such an antenna or just suddenly now (yes sometimes the 'honey badger' is a valid defense in a patent case) and can Apple argue that concealing the antenna is just a natural step in the evolution.

There is no "common place" or "honey badger" patent defense. In fact, sometimes it's considered smart to wait for a while to make the lawsuit worthwhile in damages. It's only if they waited more than six years to sue, that delays become an issue.

The concealed antenna patent is interesting, since it's about making use of external decorative parts such as a trim ring around a display or keyboard. The iPhone 4 and 4S fit that description.

Yet so do many other cell phones over the past decade (Apple was not the first to do that), so I'm wondering if Motorola has licensed this particular patent before. If they have, it makes it that much more powerful.

However, I think Apple can argue that their antenna design is not the same as the simple loop antenna mentioned in the patent, as I believe their outside trim forms part of a much different slot antenna.

*LTD*
Jan 26, 2012, 10:47 AM
Apple spent $100 million on legal fees, got a few injunctions, lost a few claims, but sent a pretty clear message. They just had the biggest 4th quarter of any company ever.

Google spent $12 billion on a near-dead company, known for lousy products and even worse service, to countersue Apple with. Google posted a lame holiday quarter.

Who's got more bang for the buck here?

ThunderSkunk
Jan 26, 2012, 11:19 AM
Hm. I don't know why I just read this thread. Another day, another cellphone patent lawsuit. Can I do anything about any of it? No. Are there more pressing things to care about in the world? Millions. This information nor the rampant armchair speculation upon it adds any value to my life.

...there goes 2/3 of the Internet.

Rocketman
Jan 26, 2012, 11:22 AM
I pulled ATNN "out of thin air" and the iPad shipped more units than PC's this quarter. The thing to focus on in my post is the political layer. Google is not stupid. They doubled their lobbying expense this year.

Although what you call thin air is informed speculation. When you know a few peripheral internal facts and a variety of public facts the intersections are interesting.

Keep posting whatever. It is a lot of nothing most of the time.

Let's see if iPhone 5 rolls out in quite a few more countries initially this time as I said in another thread.

Rocketman

KnightWRX
Jan 26, 2012, 11:39 AM
I pulled ATNN "out of thin air" and the iPad shipped more units than PC's this quarter. The thing to focus on in my post is the political layer. Google is not stupid. They doubled their lobbying expense this year.

Although what you call thin air is informed speculation. When you know a few peripheral internal facts and a variety of public facts the intersections are interesting.

Keep posting whatever. It is a lot of nothing most of the time.

Let's see if iPhone 5 rolls out in quite a few more countries initially this time as I said in another thread.

Rocketman

So do you or do you not have evidence of this "agreement" between Apple and Google when Eric joined their board or not ?

I'm confused, are you now back tracking and saying you were merely speculating ?

daxomni
Jan 26, 2012, 11:44 AM
Apple spent $100 million on legal fees, got a few injunctions, lost a few claims, but sent a pretty clear message. They just had the biggest 4th quarter of any company ever. Google spent $12 billion on a near-dead company, known for lousy products and even worse service, to countersue Apple with. Google posted a lame holiday quarter. Who's got more bang for the buck here?
Have you ever written a single demonstrably objective comment in your entire life? Apple is doing great revenue and profit wise, no doubt, but their legal wranglings have not been going so well. Any judgement on the relevance and benefit/detriment of the Google and Motorola match-up is still extremely premature.

GenesisST
Jan 26, 2012, 11:58 AM
You are undoubtedly correct.:D

Either way, just a wee bit hyperbolic, n'est pas. ;)

n'est-CE pas? Please look it up properly....

Oletros
Jan 26, 2012, 12:27 PM
I pulled ATNN "out of thin air" and the iPad shipped more units than PC's this quarter. The thing to focus on in my post is the political layer. Google is not stupid. They doubled their lobbying expense this year.

Although what you call thin air is informed speculation. When you know a few peripheral internal facts and a variety of public facts the intersections are interesting.

Keep posting whatever. It is a lot of nothing most of the time.

Let's see if iPhone 5 rolls out in quite a few more countries initially this time as I said in another thread.

Rocketman

so you don't have anything to back your claim and it was just fruit of your fantasy

*LTD*
Jan 26, 2012, 01:17 PM
Have you ever written a single demonstrably objective comment in your entire life?

Don't get upset with me because the facts tend to have a pro-Apple bias. Not my fault, I only mention them.

Apple is doing great revenue and profit wise, no doubt, but their legal wranglings have not been going so well.

Does it even matter at this point? Look at their most recent quarter. Apple can lose every claim and still continue with legal proceedings unfettered. They believe their interests are at stake. They have the right to champion them in court, same as anyone else.

Imhotep397
Jan 26, 2012, 01:17 PM
Should be interesting Apple had all of those things implemented in computers since well before the Motorola patents and the iPhone for that matter. The big thing with all of these cases is to essentially clarify the fact that the iPhone is a computer that works on telephone network bandwidth while mobile phones are basically phones with some computer functionality, a stolen UI and face form.

Oletros
Jan 26, 2012, 01:20 PM
Should be interesting Apple had all of those things implemented in computers since well before the Motorola patents and the iPhone for that matter. The big thing with all of these cases is to essentially clarify the fact that the iPhone is a computer that works on telephone network bandwidth while mobile phones are basically phones with some computer functionality, a stolen UI and face form.

Well, German judges don't think they have implemented before Motorola, so the innjunction

Glideslope
Jan 26, 2012, 04:36 PM
Things are worse than I anticipated for Google and Motorola. Desperation lawsuit.

Guess the Q1 numbers were a Googlenema. Well done Apple. :apple:

Oletros
Jan 26, 2012, 04:38 PM
Things are worse than I anticipated for Google and Motorola. Desperation lawsuit.

You're joking, don't you?

Rajani Isa
Jan 27, 2012, 02:29 AM
This one "5,754,119" boggles my mind how it could ever be allowed. First off it talks specifically and only about pagers. We aren't using pagers here. But I can see where they say that the phone uses pager type features to communicate the user status (such as if they are online, or if they are busy, etc). That, I guess is a reasonable assumption to make. But wait, this patent was filed in 1995; wasn't this same functionality already done via IRC that has been around since 1988? Why yes, it has. So how the heck could someone patent it after it was already invented and in use by someone else?

Oddly enough, this is the patent that seems to be upheld in Europe! These patents are just stupid and out of control!
But IRC isn't a wireless device. I would presume the patent is specific to this functionality as it would appy to pagers/cell phones.
These patents are ridiculous. The iPhone 4 and 4S antenna is not concealed, it is on OUTSIDE of the phone.
The antenna, in so far as it is not the rubber nub or an actual "pull to extend" antenna, is concealed. Note the patent was for a concealed EXTERNAL antenna - things like the razor, as far as I know, used an internally concealed antenna.

We know that steel band is in a large part an (rather, two/three) antenna, but give it to someone from the 90's and they'd say it has no antenna.

subsonix
Jan 27, 2012, 05:39 AM
I don't see how "U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119" could fly. Apple can simply say: "Well, it's not a pager" :)

KnightWRX
Jan 27, 2012, 05:46 AM
I don't see how "U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119" could fly. Apple can simply say: "Well, it's not a pager" :)

They can try, but the claims and description do not only apply this patent to pagers, only the abstract. From the description :

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to the field of two-way communication devices and, in particular, to information managed therein.

The claims also do not mention particular devices, referring to them as transceivers, claim 1 as an example :

1. A method of synchronizing message information among a plurality of transceivers comprising the steps of:

transmitting by a wireless messaging infrastructure a first message having a first status;

in one transceiver of the plurality of transceivers, changing the first status of the first message to a second status responsive to an input to the one transceiver, and transmitting a second message indicative of the second status;

in the wireless messaging infrastructure, receiving the second message, and responsive to receiving the second message, transmitting a third message indicative of the second status; and

in at least one other transceiver of the plurality of transceivers, receiving the third message, and responsive to receiving the third message, changing the first status of the first message to the second status.


Finally, you picked the worst patent to say it doesn't apply, as Motorola already has a favorable decision with this one in their pocket against Apple in the EU (with the EU equivalent patent obviously) and people think Apple will lose the appeal scheduled in February.

subsonix
Jan 27, 2012, 05:51 AM
The abstract on the other hand mentions nothing but pagers. And looking at this generally, it's much to broad to be likely to succeed as it would apply to all kind of synchronization, meaning Motorola could sue almost everyone with some kind of cloud service or backup system, which also keep data in sync.

KnightWRX
Jan 27, 2012, 06:00 AM
The abstract on the other hand mentions nothing but pagers.

Yep, but again, the abstract means nothing in a court case. It's the claims that are important. A lot of patents sound very generic and blatantly obvious in the abstract and yet fall apart and become very specific in the claims. That is why sometimes people think a court case is a given win for a patent holder (based on the abstract), but in the end the court sides with the defendant (the claims do not match the defendant's implementation).

And looking at this generally, it's much to broad to be likely to succeed as it would apply to all kind of synchronization, meaning Motorola could sue almost everyone with some kind of cloud service or backup system, which also keep data in sync.

There is no such thing as "much too broad" and it has already succeeded, a point you have now conveniently ignored twice. This wouldn't be the first time a patent holder has a broad patent where they can "sue everyone".

Argue all you want about it, Motorola has a win with this patent in their pocket already, a win most everyone is expect to get confirmed by the appeal's court.

In the end, what is it to you ? It's not the first time Apple is found in infringement of a patent, it won't be the last. With patents being what they are, there's just no way in this day and age you can make a device without stepping on someone else's patent, not to mention you probably can't know about it until you get sued.

subsonix
Jan 27, 2012, 06:12 AM
Argue all you want about it, Motorola has a win with this patent in their pocket already, a win most everyone is expect to get confirmed by the appeal's court.


I may just save this quote for later use. :D


In the end, what is it to you ? It's not the first time Apple is found in infringement of a patent, it won't be the last. With patents being what they are, there's just no way in this day and age you can make a device without stepping on someone else's patent, not to mention you probably can't know about it until you get sued.

Well what is it to you? It annoys me if this will succeed since it's a BS patent, using open technology like TCP/IP is okay as long as you don't synchronize data in any form, because Motorola synchronized their pagers in the early 90's.

KnightWRX
Jan 27, 2012, 06:45 AM
I may just save this quote for later use. :D

Later use what ? I'm simply quoting the initial Macrumors post. The comment is factual, based on stories in the media on Motorola's win in German court on december 9th, a decision set for appeal in february, where Motorola is expected to win by the media.

These stories are linked to in the initial post, what the future holds is unknown and the Appeal's court could still side with Apple, but what would be your point in "future use", it still wouldn't change the factual context in which the comment was made. :confused:

Or are you thinking this is my opinion and you want to try to rub it in my face as if I would somehow care ?

Is this the level of conversation I must expect with you ? Because tell me right now if it is, I will simply move you to ignore if you're not ready to discuss this maturely based on the facts we do have.

Well what is it to you? It annoys me if this will succeed since it's a BS patent, using open technology like TCP/IP is okay as long as you don't synchronize data in any form, because Motorola synchronized their pagers in the early 90's.

It's as BS as Apple's Community Design Registration. So what ? In the end, it's a battle between corporations.

What is it to me ? A way to pass the time, a subject I'm interested in for entertainment purposes. In the end, my life will go on no matter who wins/loses. I'm not siding with anyone here and neither should you be. That's just unneeded stress.

subsonix
Jan 27, 2012, 07:02 AM
Honestly, it appears that you takes this way more seriously than I do. Never mind.

DakotaGuy
Jan 27, 2012, 07:59 AM
Can you explain why there is illegal collusion?

And you know that someone can have products from different companies, don't you?

I can have an iaphone and a windows PC or I can have a MacBook and an Android phone. The wonderful world of choice

Count me as another person who enjoys different products from different companies. I really enjoy my iPad, but I decided to get a Droid RAZR for a phone so I could enjoy what both platforms have to offer. My phone doesn't have to be exactly the same as my tablet. I also have a Windows 7 notebook supplied by my work, but an iMac at home. I enjoy using different technology and although I prefer my iMac slightly over my Windows 7 PC each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Just because a person doesn't have everything Apple doesn't mean they can't be a fan of Apple or post on this site.

CylonGlitch
Jan 27, 2012, 09:00 AM
The claims also do not mention particular devices, referring to them as transceivers, claim 1 as an example :

....

Finally, you picked the worst patent to say it doesn't apply, as Motorola already has a favorable decision with this one in their pocket against Apple in the EU (with the EU equivalent patent obviously) and people think Apple will lose the appeal scheduled in February.

I understand this but if you look at what they are patenting; it had been around for a long time before the patent was issued. There were chat systems long before 1995; some of which did operate on phones. But it shouldn't be hard to show that being a wireless devices (the Transceivers don't have to be wireless) doesn't matter, the underlying technology existed and thus anyone knowledgeable in the industry could easily implement this with what existed by changing the transport media. Thus should be invalidated. More specifically, in this case, the application layer is basically the same as something like IRC, but potentially the transport layer is different although the transport layer is never called out. The patent is an application layer claim.

My guess is that the defense attorneys are not attacking the patent this way. I don't know the details of the ruling in the EU but it looks like it shouldn't be holding water but it is. Not sure why.

KnightWRX
Jan 27, 2012, 09:14 AM
I understand this but if you look at what they are patenting; it had been around for a long time before the patent was issued. There were chat systems long before 1995;

Look at all the claims. A patent is a sum of claims.

subsonix
Jan 27, 2012, 09:45 AM
it had been around for a long time before the patent was issued. There were chat systems long before 1995; some of which did operate on phones. But it shouldn't be hard to show that being a wireless devices (the Transceivers don't have to be wireless) doesn't matter, the underlying technology existed and thus anyone knowledgeable in the industry could easily implement this with what existed by changing the transport media. Thus should be invalidated. More specifically, in this case, the application layer is basically the same as something like IRC, but potentially the transport layer is different although the transport layer is never called out. The patent is an application layer claim.

I agree with this, they can not involve transport or link layers here since they are open standards. For Apples wireless products it would be IP and link layers like wifi, bluetooth and 3g.

Unless Apple is exactly using the protocol described, I can't see how the patent could be used. If they have used the same protocol, then that is different, but they could then potentially just synchronize with a different method.

MarcelV
Jan 27, 2012, 01:11 PM
Just think what the world would be like it Ford patented 4 door cars, car trunks, four wheels on a horseless carriage and the steering wheel. It would be the five wheel three door volt!

I hate generalized patents!

That patent would have been invalidated with prior art. Ford invented the assembly line for cars, not the car. And Karl Benz did patent the automobile. It was around 1886.

jhende7
Jan 31, 2012, 01:48 PM
Ha! Most of these patents are almost 20 years old. Sounds like a last ditch effort to arrange a favorable licensing agreement that extends beyond the expiration date.

Apple should throw these has-beens a bone. At least a couple million to justify the $12B google acquisition lol.