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

Apple Claims Potential Injunction Against iCloud Could Result in $2.7 Billion Loss

Tigger11 said:
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
Click to expand...

It a lot better than some of the crap patents Apple has tried to sue with. Apple problem they are running into is they are getting into the wireless/cloud bussiness where companies like Motoralla have always been and were the leaders in setting it up. The patent looking threw it looks pretty detailed and Apple could more than likely work around it. It looks like it updates indexes to say something changed. Makes it much more efficient in updating stuff. No need to scan the file unless an index saying (look I changed) is updated

Lets see slide to unlock, Pinch to zoom are two great examples of crap patents from Apple.
 
something3153 said:
I'd say the same about most, if not all, of the patents Apple is throwing around.
Click to expand...

what about apple's rubber band like snap back when you try and scroll too far so you know that your touch is being registered and in fact the list ends, That was a good original idea, should others be allowed to copy it freely?
 
Oletros said:
Is not a patent that is required to practice an industry standard
Click to expand...

Synchronization of data is a very common task practiced as soon as data is shared among more than one device. With the emergence of more small hand held devices and wifi, it sound odd that every one but motorola should have to use a wire. If this related to a specific algorithm or protocol, things would be different.
 
subsonix said:
Synchronization of data is a very common task practiced as soon as data is shared among more than one device. With the emergence of more small hand held devices and wifi, it sound odd that every one but motorola should have to use a wire. If this related to a specific algorithm or protocol, things would be different.
Click to expand...

It may sound odd, I agree. But the definition of essential patent is what it is, and this patent is not one of them.
 
Some people need to also remember that what looks like ubiquitous technology today wasn't always the case - hence the patents. Sure - in today's world - cloud syncing seems "generic" - but the same thing could be said about TVs and Cars. Just because there a millions of offerings nowadays - the technology was created by people and companies that invested time, energy and money.

I'm not advocating for the current system. I'm merely replying to those that can't believe such "simple" things are patented...
 
In the absence of an Apple win, Motorola will cave in some fashion, or we'll se a licensing deal. If not, Apple will pursue them from now until doomsday over every possible thing. Which will result in Google having to step in, which in turn, will expose Google patent-wise. And that is the absolute LAST thing Google wants.

Either way, if no deal is reached, Motorola is in for a world of hurt.
 
*LTD* said:
In the absence of an Apple win, Motorola will cave in some fashion, or we'll se a licensing deal. If not, Apple will pursue them from now until doomsday over every possible thing. Which will result in Google having to step in, which in turn, will expose Google patent-wise. And that is the absolute LAST thing Google wants.

Either way, if no deal is reached, Motorola is in for a world of hurt.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I guess we're even today :)
 
richman555 said:
I wonder what the specific patent is? and when has Motorola implemented any of this?

It must have been such a smashing success that I have never heard about it.
Click to expand...

There must be tens of thousands of patents that neither you or I have ever heard about, many of them potentially very successful. I'm not a patent clerk or patent lawyer so I don't know, are you?
 
ghettochris said:
what about apple's rubber band like snap back when you try and scroll too far so you know that your touch is being registered and in fact the list ends, That was a good original idea, should others be allowed to copy it freely?
Click to expand...

That's your great example of amazing Apple innovation?
 
Motorola could sue

dropbox
Microsoft Activesync
among others

But the iCloud service does much more than the motorola Patent describes so it may be only partially infringing that is of course if it carrys out these operations in the exact way described in the patent.
 
Last edited:
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)

All products that use iCloud in Germany... They won't actually stop selling them, they'll just exclude iCloud integration from devices sold in Germany.

The 2 billion euro approach is fascinating. Completely nuts if you ask me, but quite clever at the same time.
 
fabian9 said:
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)

All products that use iCloud in Germany... They won't actually stop selling them, they'll just exclude iCloud integration from devices sold in Germany.

The 2 billion euro approach is fascinating. Completely nuts if you ask me, but quite clever at the same time.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Motorola could counter by saying that the interest they would lose on 2.7 billion between bond and trial would be X and therefor wants Apple to put up a bond for lost interest.
 
I can't help but wonder...............

If Apple just concentrated on making products better than anyone else, AND made more products to give customers many price points to select from, unlike what they do now.

And had not turned into the company that so many love to hate due to their legal teams determination to sue anyone to even sneezes in a similar manner to an Apple sneeze.

That so many other firms would not be queueing up to fight back at Apple.

It reminds me of a kid who started off small, and everyone loved him, now he's got all bit and strong, and throwing his new found weight around.
So now other are coming up trying to knock this new bully down.

Perhaps if the bully had just carried on with his great work and focussed on that, everyone would still love him.

Karma, and all that.
 
Mad-B-One said:
...But what if the court finds I was wrong? You lost business and I might not be able to pay your losses. For this reason, you estimate what an injunction until a final ruling would cost you and I have to make sure that I have that kind of money to pay you if and when I loose. If I win, you would have to pay me reparation for infringing my patent. It's rather simple.
Click to expand...

Sounds incredibly unfair to small time patent holders who could never raise such funds.

How would small companies or individuals afford to sue for royalties due them by large companies?

Edit: never mind. You're talking about a preliminary injunction, so it makes sense that the entity wanting it should be able to cover a mistake.
 
Last edited:
samcraig said:
I'm not advocating for the current system. I'm merely replying to those that can't believe such "simple" things are patented...
Click to expand...

It's more generic than simple really. I mean it would not make sense to patent a time machine. Describing exactly, the mechanism or invention involved to make it work would however.
 
fabian9 said:
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)

All products that use iCloud in Germany... They won't actually stop selling them, they'll just exclude iCloud integration from devices sold in Germany.

The 2 billion euro approach is fascinating. Completely nuts if you ask me, but quite clever at the same time.
Click to expand...

If apple looses, they're properly using that figure to extrapolate the damages to motorola. Could end up biting them in the ass.
 
The 4s sounds like a well balanced phone other than crippled data.

I've been speed testing quite a bit with the Droid Charge, pulling an average of 8-11mb/s in LTE and between 1.2-2.5mb/s in 3g.

The other day i finally broke the 20mb/s barrier!
Of course, unless you're replacing Home internet, that kind of speed is practically irrelevant.

Especially since it's the slowest responding phone in the world on account of the 320mb of ram/1.17gb internal storage
Never have more than 50mb ram/500mb disk space.
It comes with a class 4 32gb card, that fails in the middle of shooting 720p vids :eek:
So many apps auto run ram-hungry services that can't be turned off or they auto restart.
Not about to root an unstable phone, or part with my 150+ totally necessary apps :rolleyes:

Does the iphone succumb to this kind of app attack?
 
GoodWatch said:
There must be tens of thousands of patents that neither you or I have ever heard about, many of them potentially very successful. I'm not a patent clerk or patent lawyer so I don't know, are you?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer either. I just think it is silly to fork over billions of dollars to a company who patented something they could never make successful themselves.
 
Really how does this patent have any relevance to what Apple does. The mode of communication is different, the hardware is different, the medium that is used to communicate is different, and lastly the data being synced has no relevance to what Apple does with iCloud. Furthermore no where in the patent do they extend to include communication via mediums that don't require radio transceivers such as TCP/IP communications. I guess in a very abstract world one could think of a router as a transceiver but the wording in the patent doesn't lend itself to this.

Having said all this the current climate is one that would probably see Motorola get a preliminary injunction.
 
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
Back