Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 17, 2012, 12:49 PM   #51
ChazUK
macrumors 603
 
ChazUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Essex (UK)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
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.
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?
__________________
Windows 8 Desktop | HP Chromebook 11 | Moto G GPE | LG G Watch | iPhone 4s | iPad Mini Retina | Asus MemoPad ME176C
ChazUK is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2012, 01:12 PM   #52
Imhotep397
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
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.
Imhotep397 is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2012, 01:24 PM   #53
ChazUK
macrumors 603
 
ChazUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Essex (UK)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
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.
"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).
__________________
Windows 8 Desktop | HP Chromebook 11 | Moto G GPE | LG G Watch | iPhone 4s | iPad Mini Retina | Asus MemoPad ME176C
ChazUK is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2012, 01:48 PM   #54
goosnarrggh
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazUK View Post
"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).
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.
goosnarrggh is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2012, 02:15 PM   #55
Imhotep397
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
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.
Imhotep397 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2012, 03:46 PM   #56
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
The original Android phone:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
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.
And what is that IP?
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2012, 06:21 AM   #57
goosnarrggh
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
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.
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 by goosnarrggh; Jan 18, 2012 at 06:28 AM.
goosnarrggh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2012, 12:49 AM   #58
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by goosnarrggh View Post
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.
Motorola patents used in that trial wasn't GSM patents.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2012, 06:23 AM   #59
goosnarrggh
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Motorola patents used in that trial wasn't GSM patents.
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.
goosnarrggh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2012, 10:25 AM   #60
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by goosnarrggh View Post
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.

The European patent is this: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...847654B1&KC=B1

And the USA equivalent this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5754119
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2012, 04:45 PM   #61
louis Fashion
macrumors 6502a
 
louis Fashion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Waste of Money.
__________________
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving. - Lao Tzu
louis Fashion is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple and Google/Motorola Agree to Settle Patent Litigation, Work Together on Patent Reform MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 117 May 26, 2014 10:33 AM
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 366 Sep 25, 2013 11:29 AM
ITC Rules in Favor of Apple, Older Samsung Products Facing Ban MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 182 Aug 24, 2013 10:41 AM
Apple Wins Victory Against Motorola After ITC Invalidates Sensor Patent MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 23 Apr 23, 2013 04:15 PM
ITC rules that Samsung violates four Apple patents covering design, touch craftytony iPhone 0 Oct 25, 2012 11:30 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:00 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC