Nope. Nokia started when they sued Apple in 2009. Apples first suit against another phone manufacturer came in 2010.
Lawsuits seems to be the norm, I found this NYT illustration from 2010 to be telling.
Nope. Nokia started when they sued Apple in 2009. Apples first suit against another phone manufacturer came in 2010.
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.
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)![]()
The question is... what constitutes infringing products? Certainly all the iOS based devices. And doesn't Lion have iCloud functions in it? so doesn't that mean all Macs as well?I doubt even Apple's lawyers believe that figure. It's just a made up number trying to get a high bond.
The biggest bully of the playground getting ganged up by other kids...
You'll get no sympathy from me.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)
How does one patent cloud based synchronization? That seems like a patent that should have never been given out.
Does someone own corded charging? Browser integration? File downloading?
The question is... what constitutes infringing products? Certainly all the iOS based devices. And doesn't Lion have iCloud functions in it? so doesn't that mean all Macs as well?
The 2 Billion Euro figure quoted by Apple while probably high may not be as far from the mark as we thought.
How the **** can you have a patent on data syncronization? What am I missing here?
Lawsuits seems to be the norm, I found this NYT illustration from 2010 to be telling.http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/
My point was that the lawsuit concerns data synchronization, which surely sounds like a software mechanism. If you have 2.7 billion euros, and use that to hire the best minds for this you can possibly find, can you then come up with a different, alternative data synchronization mechanism for less than 2.7 billion.
Nope. Nokia started when they sued Apple in 2009. Apples first suit against another phone manufacturer came in 2010.
Given the simple nature of the patent, the probable answer is not really. The Patent was originally describing pagers, and shared data (wirelessly) between two pagers owned by the same person, so that appointments, contacts, etc would be shared from one device to another via wireless connectivity. The patent should never have been given, but if its accepted as a valid patent, I'm not sure its even possible to do what iCloud is supposed to do and not violate it unless you make them wired connection only. Every android phone and every blackberry for instance is "using" the patent as described as likely does the Windows phones. Any phone that pulls/shares its content with an email account on another computer is likely in violation of the patent.
-Tig
Given the simple nature of the patent, the probable answer is not really. The Patent was originally describing pagers, and shared data (wirelessly) between two pagers owned by the same person, so that appointments, contacts, etc would be shared from one device to another via wireless connectivity. The patent should never have been given, but if its accepted as a valid patent, I'm not sure its even possible to do what iCloud is supposed to do and not violate it unless you make them wired connection only. Every android phone and every blackberry for instance is "using" the patent as described as likely does the Windows phones. Any phone that pulls/shares its content with an email account on another computer is likely in violation of the patent.
-Tig
Exactly! And that is why it is good that if Motorola / Google want them to stop using iCloud, they should have to put up a bond of $2.7bn to make sure that they don't do it just to get ahead of Apple on the German market. Because if the court finds that this is not infringing, Apple will get 2.7bn for losses plus another payment tor future losses because they lost market share to competitors. It could even end up being a FRAND violation if Motorola did not offer using this patent to Apple for FRAND prices - and we know that this can get expensive because it would prohibit competition.
How the **** can you have a patent on data syncronization? What am I missing here?
I doubt even Apple's lawyers believe that figure. It's just a made up number trying to get a high bond.
Apple could be forced to pull all of its products in Germany that contain the infringing iCloud integration.
That's really questionable IMO.