Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WTF. They're litigating over a 15 year old patent? The fact that patents last that long is absolutely absurd. If we even need patents to begin with, their effective period should be much shorter. Especially patents on electronics & software.
IF you don't understand why we need patents then you don't undestand the value of thinking, investing you time, and money and energy.
It is working for a reward, Not like taking noney from the system but not contributing to it. Be a valued member of society not a drain on it.
Great to see Apple getting a taste of their own medicine. They will soon realize that companies like Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft have been in this a lot longer than they have, and likely have a ton of patents related to mobile technology that Apple infringes on.
Good points, and the truth. Apple has done as much copying and stealing as everyone they are suing.
I'm sorry I guess you didnt read the patent very closely. Its not a good patent, period. Basically its a patent on making a backup wirelessly. Really think given that at the time this patent was given that real time backups were occuring over wired systems worldwide, that allowing a patent for doing the exact same thing wirelessly on pagers and then extending that patent to all wireless devices in the current age makes sense. I hate to point it out to Motorola, but I am pretty sure that we were syncing space systems wirelessly at NASA long before this patent was granted, and that prior art would throw this patent out pretty quickly for this broadening of the topic.
I don't believe that Apple under Tim Cook will be as obscenely obsessed as Steve Jobs was. Steve was addicted to taking highly aggressive & vindictive measures in order to release the hate he harbored for competition. Having convinced droves of his followers that anything that didn't have an Apple logo, wasn't worth it's weight in scrap. Between his expertise in convincing people to let him do their thinking for them, and his ability to operate nearly without consequence, there was no one who could manipulate others as Steve could. It was his ability to influence others that made him the worlds best salesman. He had the game down cold.
That said, it will be quite interesting to see how Apple competes after the halo of Steve Jobs has faded a bit. It will always be present in some form, but a mere shadow of it's previous strength.
No, because Motorola doesn't have to carry out an injunction. The price for the injunction if they get it is the interest on the $2.7B bond. The number is based on sales for the time of the injunction until the case and probably appeal occurs.
-Tig
Thank you for a reasonable, insightful post.
Apple's patent portfolio is far too shallow to engage in a battle like this.
Minimalism is a dangerous path in the design world. Where is the identity? There is a reason the world isn't all le Corbusier-- people like to have a sense of individuality, character, locale. Apple needs to be careful....
To the OP, if all the device embodies is a black border with a grid of colorful icons, should that be an identity that is at least trade-markable? Personally not sure...
----------
Yes and no. They have some true innovation in addition to all the crap (a la 1-click) that should never be permitted protection, much less attribution or even acknowledgement. They truly did usher in the modern smart-phone. Proof is in the modern Blackberries. They have a graceful, easy-to-use system that the competition is slowly learning from.
Now see how long copyrights last.
----------
Kind of like how multi-touch capacitive touch screens are very common and it sounds odd that everyone but Apple should have to use something else? Yeah.
Patent laws should be changed..
I don't understand them fully, but a 15 yr old patent sounds like its prime past it. I know who hard programming and design are, but how about we minimize the years patents stay active since technology moves so fast? innovative becomes a normality after a couple of years. What do you guys think?
I don't understand them fully, but a 15 yr old patent sounds like its prime past it. I know who hard programming and design are, but how about we minimize the years patents stay active since technology moves so fast? innovative becomes a normality after a couple of years. What do you guys think?
It's not about backing up wirelessly though, it's about managing the state of some data on one device (e.g. read) and ensuring that state is replicated across other devices without the data being stored on a server. In this case (as I understand it), no data is stored on any servers, so it's not like IMAP which pushes out the data to multiple devices from a server. This is a notification that a message has been read or deleted on one device and that therefore the message should be read or deleted on all the other devices.
The analogy would be deleting an app on my iPhone and having my iPad also delete it without me intervening. Or watching a video on my iPad and having my MBP know that the status in iTunes should change from unwatched to watched, etc, without performing a sync.
On the 2.7 billions... why dont they just use that money towards paying initial licenses to Motorola. Then, if courts for some reason change their minds later, Apple can just have its money back. Close to 0 risk for everyone. Thats what i would say if i was the judge at least (assuming the construct as such is legally possible).
Not sure, ask Apple. Im sure they can think of a way to patent it, if they havernt already.
----------
Indeed. Its quite interesting to observe some form of "pendulum swing". While Apple, thanks to their path-history in software, were able to disrupt the industry, they are now finding the same convergence that they capitalized on somewhat troubling. Apple does not have 20 years of legacy within radio technology (etc.). The now disrupted incumbents however, do.
----------
Others arent. Samsung were forced to change the behavior of their photo app.
----------
I agree on software, dont agree on electronics. And, software should really be divided in two, but yes - most of it doesnt even deserve a life-span of 1 year.
Not sure, ask Apple. Im sure they can think of a way to patent it, if they havernt already.
----------
Indeed. Its quite interesting to observe some form of "pendulum swing". While Apple, thanks to their path-history in software, were able to disrupt the industry, they are now finding the same convergence that they capitalized on somewhat troubling. Apple does not have 20 years of legacy within radio technology (etc.). The now disrupted incumbents however, do.
----------
Others arent. Samsung were forced to change the behavior of their photo app.
----------
I agree on software, dont agree on electronics. And, software should really be divided in two, but yes - most of it doesnt even deserve a life-span of 1 year.
Last edited:
Actually that is what patents were meant to be for (well not really the "billions of dollars" part).
Someone comes with a MAYOR breaktrough in technology but is inable to bring it to the market immediatly.
After getting a patent he can now talk openly about and might find someone capable of setting up production without having to worry about someone else just taking it for free.
This works well for so long as only real inventions are patended and they last only last a short time in realation to the speed of technology adavancement in that area. Both aren't true for the IT sector.
Imagine a world were the patents on the Otto and Diesel engines were still valid and where only Daimler and Benz could produce cars (if they managed to get a deal with either Otto or Diesel offcourse).
Yes, but NASA was using Motorola equipment.
"Beginning in 1958 with Explorer 1, Motorola provided radio equipment for most NASA space-flights for decades including during the 1969 moon landing." (from wikipedia)
and here is a more recent one with details.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Feb_1/ai_53672762/
The problem here as far as I can tell is that there are existing technologies in place to share information wirelessly (wifi/bluetooth/3g etc) that is not controlled by Motorola. You can use these technologies to send and recieve data, you can just not use it to syncronize data (according to Motorola).
I hate Motorola. And Samsung! Boycot!
I agree! Can someone provide me with a list of Apple hardware that does not use anything made by Samsung so I know what I am able to purchase.
Haha.. good luck with that. When it comes to patents, Apple has stolen a bunch of parts from a bunch of vendors, repackaged them and sold them. I hope they are taken to the cleaners.
If I had to bet, Apple is going to spend part of their hoard of $80 billion dollars to buy/license a huge patent trove from somebody, just to protect themselves. This has got to be a big nightmare for them.
How is a claimant different from a plaintiff?
Most courts agree with the software part as well, which is why they're usually very reluctant to grant patents on software (in North America anyway). They view software as non-inventive/non-novel as it's essentially just a set of mental processes and/or mathematical formulas being performed by a machine.
Of course, after the amazon.com 1-click shopping case everything's gone to ****.
But that case is on appeal so I wouldn't bet on a lot of patents granted for software quite yet.
EDIT: Not to say that the injunction against Apple has anything to do with software...
Last edited: