Apple and Google's Motorola Unit Seeking Arbitration to Resolve Patent Dispute

[Mike MA]

Good news. They turned off iCloud's push email function in Germany because of Motorola's injunction

[Bonte]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

It was an idiotic comment that Steve obviously said in anger - there's no way Apple could do bugger all to stop Android's success (and yes, it is a success).

Define success

52% of smart-phones sold are Android, 32% is iPhone.
72% of smart-phone internet use is iPhone, 26% is Andorid

70% of tablets sold are iPads, 30% is Android.
95% of tablet internet usage is iPad, 5% is Android

That is not a real success for Google that relies heavily on internet usage to make it's money. Working together with Apple would made them much more profit, i see it as a big failure.

http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-...et-use-1082617

[thekev]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

You mean the same 1$/device figure that got Apple's complaint before the courts dismissed with prejudice ?

I don't know why people think Apple is somehow being nice here. Apple was basically forced into this when their bid to take Motorola to court over "FRAND abuse" was rejected by the courts.

The very 1$ figure you site is what sealed their fate. When they told the judge to decide a rate, but no more than 1$ per device, the judge instead dismissed Apple's lawsuit with prejudice.

The claim also mentioned that they wouldn't even be held to $1 per device. They merely wanted it as a starting point for later negotiations. They were trying to negotiate in bad faith while spinning the PR kool-aid in their favor as much as possible.

Originally Posted by theBB

Who said Apple is being nice?

You are missing the point. Google wanted to use injunctions against Apple (and Microsoft) with its FRAND patents. Any device implementing communication standards or video players have to use one of these patents, so if Google could use injunctions, it could force both of its competitors to give it and other Android OEMs a good deal on the other "optional", but desirable patents. That was the big war. Apple has always known it needs to pay some amount for FRAND patents, just like it needed to pay for Nokia's patents, so it is not being forced into arbitration. The victory for Apple is being able to go to arbitration without a threat of immediate injunctions.

They tried to avoid paying for Nokia's patents as wel. I can't find any real prior basis for FRAND abuse on older cases. Is it a newer argument in general? It's not like negotiations wouldn't have been offered prior to litigation, but Google-Motorola needs some method of actual recourse. I read the dismissal word for word. It mentioned that not only did Apple reserve the right to reject anything above $1/device, they also reserved the right to negotiate down from there. Motorola on the other hand had agreed to abide by the court's decision. I don't see how that is reasonable. One side agreed to abide by the decision of a third party while the other threw in multiple exclusions. The judge indicated that he didn't wish to hold a trial where the sole purpose would be to provide Apple with a bargaining chip rather than a solution to this dispute.

Originally Posted by theBB

About that $1 figure, once it is down to arbitration, Apple feels it is in no hurry to settle and naturally will do everything it can to bring down the price. I don't think the judge threw away Apple's complaint, because these patents are "obviously" worth more than $1. She probably did not want a ceiling on the price before any record has been established over their worth. Apple may have preferred independent arbitration over a court imposed one presided over by that particular judge in that particular venue. I don't think that is a significant point in this patent war.

Arbitration isn't around the $1 figure. As I mentioned Apple didn't even agree to abide by that figure. They claimed the right to negotiate down from such a ceiling, and did not offer cross licensing as part of the deal, which is probably the thing Google wants. Had they been favorable to it, they may not have seen some of their now invalid patents examined to that degree. It's supposed to be conducted by a neutral party who would look at all factors involved. This means that the end price charged to others isn't the only factor considered. They would look at any cross licensing agreements in place that altered the final price in other negotiations.

[tdream]

Originally Posted by maknik

I can't believe Motorola still has that logo. Now that Google owns then, they've really got to replace the 50's bra with something a little more modern.

38 DoubleDs?

[marksman]

Masterful move by apple to corner Samsung as the only completely unreasonable party in the industry

[Evoken]

Originally Posted by marksman

Masterful move by apple to corner Samsung as the only completely unreasonable party in the industry

From what I've read this wasn't really Apple's move but Motorola's.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by theBB

Who said Apple is being nice?

You are missing the point. Google wanted to use injunctions against Apple (and Microsoft) with its FRAND patents. Any device implementing communication standards or video players have to use one of these patents, so if Google could use injunctions, it could force both of its competitors to give it and other Android OEMs a good deal on the other "optional", but desirable patents. That was the big war.

One Apple lost. Many jurisdictions have ruled that obtaining injunctions for FRAND patents is not abuse. There is nothing in FRAND that prevents a patent holder from obtaining an injunction against a non-licensee that refuses to negotiate in good faith, like Apple demonstrated with its constant rejection of Fair terms, and even imposing quite unfair terms of "no more than 1$ per device".

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Evoken

From what I've read this wasn't really Apple's move but Motorola's.

Facts are not important for him

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by thasan

that something fandroids wont agree with
androids are not stolen, but they are 'inspired' (used in a heavily negative way here) by the market leaders and by flooding the market, they 'win'. i dont understand why google did this. they havent been like this with many of their other products, isnt it?

Same as iPhone was inspired by Android. It's not about being "Fandroid" or "Apple fanboy". Those are just derogative terms. There's a big line between the spiel of "Android is a stolen OS!" and "a few of its UI and features were iOS inspired, same as a few UI elements and features in iOS are inspired by Android".

In the end, both projects are different, with different architectures and goals, but do get inspiration for each other and other players in the market that have been and are still with us.

[KPOM]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

If Android is a stolen OS and a blatant ripoff of iOS why do so many iOS users say that Andoroid isn't intuitive and too difficult to use? It doesn't make sense to me.

Windows (through versions 3.X) was obviously a blatant ripoff of MacOS (down to such elements as windowing, the CTRL keyboard shortcuts and the appearance of icons), but lots of Mac users found it unintuitive and difficult to use. Microsoft won its case primarily because John Sculley screwed up and gave Microsoft an overly broad license in exchange for Microsoft promising to deliver Office to the Mac first. Plus software patents weren't as common back then, and courts ruled that mere "look and feel" weren't copyrightable.

The idea is that someone can copy the basic concept, but completely butcher the UI because they don't pay the same attention to detail. In the case of Android, it took Google a few years to iron out the UI but they got a "head start" as Apple showed the way with such tight integration between the phone, contacts, and maps apps, for instance.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Bonte

That is not a real success for Google that relies heavily on internet usage

The stats only calculate web usage, not Internet usage. There is a difference. Anyhow, you're narrowly defining success to support your argument. There is more than one metric to success, and Android is indeed a success, so is the iPhone.

Steve said another brilliant thing you should consider : "Microsoft doesn't need to lose for Apple to win". Think of it the same with Google's Android and Apple's iOS.

I don't know why people feel the need to crown a champion here. Both OSes are good, both are having success on the market, must we really bicker and fight in every such thread about which is best ? There is no best!

----------

Originally Posted by KPOM

Windows (through versions 3.X) was obviously a blatant ripoff of MacOS (down to such elements as windowing, the CTRL keyboard shortcuts and the appearance of icons).

Uh ?

Mac OS 1.0 :



Windows 1.0 :



Those look the same to you ?!?

----------

Originally Posted by KPOM

Apple showed the way with such tight integration between the phone, contacts, and maps apps, for instance.

My phone always had tight integration between the phone and contacts, where do you come up with this stuff ?

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by marksman

Masterful move by apple to corner Samsung as the only completely unreasonable party in the industry

Ah, another poster who sees "the strategy out of which victory is evolved".

Well done. SJ is smiling at your post. Send Bruce a Holiday Card also.

[ChazUK]

Masterful move by Samsung in getting HTC to strike a licencing deal with Apple which puts any injunctions on Samsung hardware at risk.

This spinning losses into wins is fun!

[theluggage]

Originally Posted by Sy7ygy

don't be evil.

Actually, its the manufacturers like HTC and Samsung who've been designing phones and customising Android (and, in the past, Win Mobile) to make it look more like iOS. Remember those memos from Google to Samsung saying "make it look less like an iPhone"?

Trouble is, these lawsuits take so long to resolve that the end result is a bit like hitting a dog 2 weeks after it made a mess on the carpet. The iClones that Samsung et. al. were producing a year or two back were pretty blatant, but Apple's problem now is that the competition has largely stopped making iClones and offers a choice of form factors and features that you won't find in the 'one size fits all' iPhone.

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by ChazUK

Masterful move by Samsung in getting HTC to strike a licencing deal with Apple which puts any injunctions on Samsung hardware at risk.

This spinning losses into wins is fun!

LOL. Dream on. If Samsung does not come to the table provided Apple & Google go to arbitration the verdict will be set in stone.

While not perfect, we don't have Kangaroo Courts over hear. Or issue legal president on the "Cool Factor". LOL.

No US Judge will release the terms of the Apple HTC License, and if the unthinkable should happen Apple will appeal. They will settle with Motorola (which lost 500 million in 2012, yea, Goole wants this done) and direct 100% of their energy at Samsung.

Samsung has just realized what is happening over the past week. Too little too late. They will soon be the child in the back of the room refusing to speak.

2013 will be a good year for iOS, Android, and WIN 8 Mobile. Let's not forget the positive effect of settling with HTC on TSMC.

Remember, look 5 years down the road at a minimum when doing a Risk Analysis.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

LOL. Dream on. If Samsung does not come to the table provided Apple & Google go to arbitration the verdict will be set in stone.

While not perfect, we don't have Kangaroo Courts over hear. Or issue legal president on the "Cool Factor". LOL.

No US Judge will release the terms of the Apple HTC License, and if the unthinkable should happen Apple will appeal. They will settle with Motorola (which lost 500 million in 2012, yea, Goole wants this done) and direct 100% of their energy at Samsung.

Samsung has just realized what is happening over the past week. Too little too late. They will soon be the child in the back of the room refusing to speak.

2013 will be a good year for iOS, Android, and WIN 8 Mobile. Let's not forget the positive effect of settling with HTC on TSMC.

Remember, look 5 years down the road at a minimum when doing a Risk Analysis.

Do you really live in the same reality?

[ChazUK]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

LOL. Dream on. If Samsung does not come to the table provided Apple & Google go to arbitration the verdict will be set in stone.

You... Actually took what I posted seriously?

http://www.asciifacepalm.com/

[Pockleton]

Originally Posted by camnchar

Yeah, if he were alive, Steve Jobs might have stroked out seeing Android's market share today. It's playing out a bit like late 80s-early 90s Apple vs Microsoft.

You mean market cap. Flooding the market with free plastic clones does not equal cash, it means desperation. Like dumping propaganda leaflets from an airplane during war. Sorry you were confused, actually I'm not.
Maybe Steve jobs would be also "stoked" to know that every Droid tard is making his family rich since Jobs is largest shareholder in Disney which owns the rights to Lucas Films. Drrooiiidd.


A refrigerator company cloning a best seller, NOT MOST SHIPPED.. is desperate for attention. A "no taste" company with a decades long delusional Leader creating hybrid laptops that look like broken chairs won't change their 3 place standing or Samsungs frustration place (second)..

But keep the 80's alive.

----------

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

If Android is a stolen OS and a blatant ripoff of iOS why do so many iOS users say that Andoroid isn't intuitive and too difficult to use? It doesn't make sense to me.

Hers why:

Apple created a 4 seater sedan.
Apple created a convertible 2 seater version of said sedan


Google stole apples convertible
Google shoved 2 more odd looking chairs into said convertible
Bingo: Google sedan

A Frankenstein mash up in a convertible google clown car.

[theluggage]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Uh ?

Mac OS 1.0 :

Windows 1.0 :


Those look the same to you ?!?

GP was referring to Windows 3.1, which was the first version of Windows to gain any real traction.

Windows 3.1 also post-dated Mac OS System 7, which had evolved a lot since Mac OS 1 (e.g. it had colour/greyscale and supported pseudo-multitasking) so your comparison isn't particularly sensible.

Your image was Windows 1, which made minimal use of icons, had tiled, non-overlapping windows and had as much in common with MS-DOS applications like Sidekick as it did with Mac OS/Xerox Star. Nobody used it much.

The main Apple/MS lawsuit was over Windows 2 which:

...allowed application windows to overlap each other unlike its predecessor Windows 1.0, which could display only tiled windows. Windows 2.0 also introduced more sophisticated keyboard-shortcuts and the terminology of "Minimize" and "Maximize"...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2#Features)

...even so, nobody used that much, either.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Pockleton

Sorry you were confused, actually I'm not.
Maybe Steve jobs would be also "stoked" to know that every Droid tard is making his family rich since Jobs is largest shareholder in Disney which owns the rights to Lucas Films. Drrooiiidd.

Yes, you're confused. Droid tard?

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by theluggage

GP was referring to Windows 3.1,

No, GP said :

Windows (through versions 3.X)

Don't try to rewrite things when they are still posted on this very page.

[KnightWRX]

Actually, you are confused. The only people lining Disney with money over the Droid trademark are Verizon users. Verizon is the one that licenses the Droid trademark for its marketing.

[Pockleton]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Actually, you are confused. The only people lining Disney with money over the Droid trademark are Verizon users. Verizon is the one that licenses the Droid trademark for its marketing.

"Knapp reports, “Lucasfilm owns the trademark over the word ‘Droid’ because of the Star Wars films… the name is being used under license… [and] Steve Jobs‘ trust now gets a little bit richer – when people buy an Android Smartphone made by Motorola.”

- Mac Daily news. <-- I know I know, don't trust a fanboy site, gotcha.

[Hell0W0rld]

Originally Posted by beaner454

I'm so tired of this, Steve made mistakes and he also went back on his word. But we gave him the benefit of the doubt. Any time Tim does something than we think Steve would have done, we automatically get at least a handful of people claiming that Apple has lost its way.

Steve wasn't infallible, and just because Tim does something different doesn't make him wrong.

That pepsi guy, John Sculley, did also something different than Steve, just saying!

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Pockleton

"Knapp reports, “Lucasfilm owns the trademark over the word ‘Droid’ because of the Star Wars films… the name is being used under license… [and] Steve Jobs‘ trust now gets a little bit richer – when people buy an Android Smartphone made by Motorola.”

- Mac Daily news. <-- I know I know, don't trust a fanboy site, gotcha.

Yes, the Motorola phone marketed as the "Motorola Droid" for Verizon. Otherwise, others know it as a Motorola Milestone.

Droid is a marketing campaign done by Verizon for their line-up which included the original Motorola Droid, the HTC Droid Eris, the Motorola Droid X and so on.

"Droid Does" ring a bell ?

http://droiddoes.verizonwireless.com/

©2012 Verizon Wireless. Add'l charges and conditions apply for apps. Coverage not available everywhere. DROID is a trademark of Lucasfilm, Ltd. and its related companies. Used under license.