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

ITC Rules Against Apple in Motorola Patent Case

I

Imhotep397

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
350
37
johnnyinternets said:
Logged in to vote this down. Pathetic post.
Click to expand...

I hate hacks of all kinds and equally.

I am curious as to why some people feel that Android in it's current iOS rip-off form should continue?

The original Android phone:
android_prototype_550x385.jpg


The people that defend this kind blatant infringement are pathetic. Go get one of those Android fans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I

Imhotep397

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
350
37
ChazUK said:
Android runs on phones of that very hardware design today.
Image
Click to expand...

Uh, no that's a 2008 (probably HTC build) of what Google had in mind for the Android phone. Since Android is capable of running on a phone that doesn't infringe on Apple's IP they should do so EXCLUSIVELY. Of course those are blatant Blackberry rip-offs, but whatever RIM should be dealing with it.
 
ChazUK

ChazUK

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,393
25
Essex (UK)
Imhotep397 said:
Uh, no that's a 2008 (probably HTC build) of what Google had in mind for the Android phone. Since Android is capable of running on a phone that doesn't infringe on Apple's IP they should do so EXCLUSIVELY.
Click to expand...

It is pre-production HTC hardware, see my edit above featuring the HTC Snap. HTC had a run of handsets using that very design running on Windows Mobile.

Does this rule you made up also include IP that apple may well end up infringing from Motorola?
 
I

Imhotep397

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
350
37
Being that I've owned quite a few Motorola phones if there's any infringement at all it will be minimal and it won't effect the actual operation of the iOS in an iPhone. Again all of this would be resolved if Apple would enter into aggressive negotiations towards a takeover of Google.
 
ChazUK

ChazUK

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,393
25
Essex (UK)
Imhotep397 said:
Being that I've owned quite a few Motorola phones if there's any infringement at all it will be minimal and it won't effect the actual operation of the iOS in an iPhone. Again all of this would be resolved if Apple would enter into aggressive negotiations towards a takeover of Google.
Click to expand...

"LIBERTYVILLE, Ill., Dec. 9, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. ("Motorola Mobility") today announced that the court in Manheim, Germany (the "Court") has ruled that Apple's company, Ireland-based Apple Sales International, is infringing one of Motorola Mobility's core cellular communications patents related to data packet transfer technology (GPRS) through its sales of the iPhone and iPad devices. The Court granted Motorola Mobility's requests for an injunction and damages."

I'm pretty much sure that would have a disastrous effect on the operation of the iPhone considering that packet data is a core function of the device.

To put a spin on your opinion: Since Apple is incapable making a phone that doesn't infringe on Motorola's IP they should cease to do so (or negotiate fair licencing terms).
 
G

goosnarrggh

macrumors 68000
May 16, 2006
1,602
20
ChazUK said:
"LIBERTYVILLE, Ill., Dec. 9, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. ("Motorola Mobility") today announced that the court in Manheim, Germany (the "Court") has ruled that Apple's company, Ireland-based Apple Sales International, is infringing one of Motorola Mobility's core cellular communications patents related to data packet transfer technology (GPRS) through its sales of the iPhone and iPad devices. The Court granted Motorola Mobility's requests for an injunction and damages."

I'm pretty much sure that would have a disastrous effect on the operation of the iPhone considering that packet data is a core function of the device.

To put a spin on your opinion: Since Apple is incapable making a phone that doesn't infringe on Motorola's IP they should cease to do so (or negotiate fair licencing terms).
Click to expand...

That story is nuanced. Motorola offered licensing FRAND terms to Apple.

Apple responded with a counter-offer that effectively amounted to the statement, "We'll pay you, but we reserve the right to sue you later to have the patent invalidated".

Motorola successfully argued that Apple's counter-offer was non-FRAND.

The courts have decided (subject ot appeal, no doubt) that, by deliberately choosing not to accept the FRAND terms that Motorola had initially offered, and then giving a non-FRAND counter-offer in response, Apple had given up the ability to use many of the protections that would normally have been available to them under typical FRAND patent policies.
 
I

Imhotep397

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
350
37
This is why I view lawyers in such a bad light and most legal systems. They're like mice that crawl into small spaces and squirm about. It's never straight forward...clearly (and I read about this story when it was first released) terms were agreed to , but because there's a legal mouse hole...eh..hem...loop hole there ya go.

----------

Even having said that packet transfer is not new, at least not to computer OS designers. I doubt that there's not an alternate method that can be used. The foundation of UNIX is built on various packet transfer/encoding/decoding methods.
 
Oletros

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
Imhotep397 said:
The original Android phone:
Click to expand...

Still using that debunked picture?

This is NOT the original Android phone, this is ONE of the Android prototypes, there was this and the ones touch only ones.

Imhotep397 said:
Uh, no that's a 2008 (probably HTC build) of what Google had in mind for the Android phone. Since Android is capable of running on a phone that doesn't infringe on Apple's IP they should do so EXCLUSIVELY. Of course those are blatant Blackberry rip-offs, but whatever RIM should be dealing with it.
Click to expand...

And what is that IP?
 
G

goosnarrggh

macrumors 68000
May 16, 2006
1,602
20
Imhotep397 said:
Even having said that packet transfer is not new, at least not to computer OS designers. I doubt that there's not an alternate method that can be used. The foundation of UNIX is built on various packet transfer/encoding/decoding methods.
Click to expand...

The problem is, any different method of conveying packets would, by definition, be incompatible with the rules of GSM mobile communication.

Therefore, any manufacturer that doesn't implement the packet transmission scheme exactly as described in this patent, would have to convince all their carrier partners to set up a secondary wireless network, independent of all their existing GSM infrastructure, exclusively for use with that particular manufacture's nonstandard system.

I suppose the manufacturer could omit GPRS (ie. 2G GSM) from their equipment entirely, and stipulate that the phone will only work on networks where UMTS (ie baseline 3G GSM or newer) coverage is available. I haven't read any analysis of how (or if) this patent applies to newer generations of GSM, so I don't know for sure if this would be a viable option.
 
Last edited:
Oletros

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
goosnarrggh said:
The problem is, any different method of conveying packets would, by definition, be incompatible with the rules of GSM mobile communication.

Therefore, any manufacturer that doesn't implement the packet transmission scheme exactly as described in this patent, would have to convince all their carrier partners to set up a secondary wireless network, independent of all their existing GSM infrastructure, exclusively for use with that particular manufacture's nonstandard system.

I suppose the manufacturer could omit GPRS (ie. 2G GSM) from their equipment entirely, and stipulate that the phone will only work on networks where UMTS (ie baseline 3G GSM or newer) coverage is available. I haven't read any analysis of how (or if) this patent applies to newer generations of GSM, so I don't know for sure if this would be a viable option.
Click to expand...

Motorola patents used in that trial wasn't GSM patents.
 
G

goosnarrggh

macrumors 68000
May 16, 2006
1,602
20
Oletros said:
Motorola patents used in that trial wasn't GSM patents.
Click to expand...

I'll have to assume you have some extra information I haven't seen on that point. (If you do have such extra information, may I see it?)

The commentary I'd read had suggested that the Motorola patent in this particular trial was for a technology that was a necessary, unavoidable component of GPRS, ie. baseline data over 2G GSM.
 
Oletros

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
goosnarrggh said:
I'll have to assume you have some extra information I haven't seen on that point. (If you do have such extra information, may I see it?)

The commentary I'd read had suggested that the Motorola patent in this particular trial was for a technology that was a necessary, unavoidable component of GPRS, ie. baseline data over 2G GSM.
Click to expand...


The European patent is this: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publ...=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=0847654B1&KC=B1

And the USA equivalent this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5754119.PN.&OS=PN/5754119&RS=PN/5754119
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom