Apple Pulls All 3G Devices Except iPhone 4S from German Online Store Following Motorola Patent Win [Updated]

[voonyx]

According to FOSS, the injunction suspension is only good for a short time, and Apple likely had to put up a 120 million Euro bond to get it.

Also apparently Apple has submitted another offer to Motorola.

It looks like Apple is trying to buy a few days' or weeks' time to come to a deal with Moto before the sales injunction kicks back in.

.

Yeah but you can't trust foss, mueller has been "proved wrong" many times...

Anyway, yeah this is temporary could be a few weeks could be a year like foss mentions. The courts will figure it out and at the end of the day, motorola will license their frand patents to apple, and apple will continue making billions.

The icloud patent is a different story i guess

 

[Big Dawg 23]

The 4S uses a Qualcomm chip. Since Qualcomm has a license for the patent in question, it is in the clear. A patent holder can't "double dip" and collect royalties from a customer who purchases a part from a supplier who has properly licensed it.

Motorola won two cases today. The products being pulled relate to a FRAND patent, the preliminary decision of which was reached back in December. The other victory related to iCloud. Apple didn't assert a FRAND patent in that case, and thus it is possible Apple will need to disable iCloud in Germany, at least until they work out a licensing deal.

Apple is disputing the validity of the pager patent in the iCloud case. Regarding the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and 3G iPad, Apple isn't disputing the validity of the patent. They are simply disputing how much they need to pay Motorola Mobility to license it.

I think the bigger deal isn't the pulling of the products today. It is Motorola Mobility's victory in the iCloud case. Apple and Motorola will eventually settle the FRAND patents. However, Motorola Mobility may be less willing to license technology that Apple can use in iCloud, since it competes against Google's similar Cloud services.

You beat me to it.

Nice summary.

 

[kdarling]

Yeah but you can't trust foss, mueller has been "proved wrong" many times...

On that I must agree. I diverge with him over the meaning and worth of many patents, for example. However this is just procedural stuff.

Anyway, yeah this is temporary could be a few weeks could be a year like foss mentions. The courts will figure it out and at the end of the day, motorola will license their frand patents to apple, and apple will continue making billions.

Yep, and as has been pointed out, we the consumer will be the losers. Already each smartphone sold probably takes $30-$45 or more in royalties and it just keeps going up. So will our prices.

 

[KPOM]

Yep, and as has been pointed out, we the consumer will be the losers. Already each smartphone sold probably takes $30-$45 or more in royalties and it just keeps going up. So will our prices.

Inventors need to be compensated when others use their property. If it were so easy to do these things without patented technology, then others would have found ways around them.

I do agree we need to make sure that the patent system isn't abused, but that's where courts come in.

 

[menithings]

I do see a pattern in how Apple and Motorola/Google/Samsung use the patent system:

- Apple comes from the position that it must defend its in-house developed inventions and trade dress that help define its brand. None of the patents, trade dress or IP (inertial scrolling, swipe to unlock, unique industrial design, packaging etc) are essential for the competition to make the own products in the same space. Apple by law must defend its patents or they will losing them.

- Motorola/Google/Samsung come from a reactionary position. They do not want to give in to Apple's lawsuits because their business model includes copying Apple IP and trade dress. So their lawsuits typically involve searching their patent portfolio for something that Apple may infringe upon as a form of counter attack. The problem with this strategy is that many of Motorola/Google/Samsung's patents are technical specifications that are now industry standards, and therefor suing the competition is monopolistic and illegal.

So it comes down to this:

- Apple invents game changing, industry re-defining tech. It then protects these inventions.
- The competition is free to invent their own original responses to Apple's innovation.
- The competition instead copies Apple's IP/trade dress.
- Apple rightfully sues.
- The competition responds by digging into their patent portfolio to counter sue.
- The competition's counter suits often involve essential technology that is monopolistic.

The question is: Why doesn't Motorola/Google/Samsung just come up with their own original ideas. If they do, Apple will not sue. It's as simple as that.

The answer is: Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so.

 

[rjohnstone]

I do see a pattern in how Apple and Motorola/Google/Samsung use the patent system:
*snip*

This is the very type of post I refer to as an "Apple can do no wrong" post.
I'd say a majority of what you just wrote is mainly your opinion and not actual facts.

Apple is great at packaging existing technologies into great consumer products, however they rely on the work of others (Motorola,Samsung, Nokia, etc.) to make these products function.
I'm not saying they don't invent anything, however I'm pointing out that they are the late comer to to this field and are acting a bit arrogant in what they think they should be held accountable for when they're using others IP.

Their design arguments are also way out there. Generic is not unique.
Their community design case in Germany for example, is so generic that it defies logic as to how it hasn't been thrown out.
But I seem to recall, they don't actually review these types of registrations, they simply rubber stamp them.

 

[thenerdal]

So it comes down to this:

- Apple invents game changing, industry re-defining tech. It then protects these inventions.
- The competition is free to invent their own original responses to Apple's innovation.
- The competition instead copies Apple's IP/trade dress.
- Apple rightfully sues.
- The competition responds by digging into their patent portfolio to counter sue.
- The competition's counter suits often involve essential technology that is monopolistic.

The question is: Why doesn't Motorola/Google/Samsung just come up with their own original ideas. If they do, Apple will not sue. It's as simple as that.

The answer is: Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so.

Apple doesn't invent. Apple takes ideas and makes it better. Samsung, Motorola and others invent.

 

[menithings]

Apple doesn't invent. Apple takes ideas and makes it better. Samsung, Motorola and others invent.

Lol.

Apple has been awarded 25,587 patent inventions. Steven P. Jobs is included in 323 of them.

 

[AaronEdwards]

If Apple is ready to push out iPad3 without the offending technology, and iPhone 4S does not use the 3G technology then maybe Apple just loses about a month of sales in Germany, ramps of demand for their new products.

If true, expect to see release of iPad3 in Germany pushed forward -- say release of iPad3 in Germany at same time as in the US.

I recall the 4 being the most sold phone and the 3GS being the second most sold phone before the 4S was released, so I'm pretty sure that both it and the 4 is still very high up in sales lists.

Apple is losing sales by this. A lot of those looking for a 3GS or 4 will pick another phone instead of a 4S.

"don't be evil", lol. google was good 10 years ago maybe.

The same could be said about Apple.

 

[thenerdal]

Lol.

Apple has been awarded 25,587 patent inventions. Steven P. Jobs is included in 323 of them.

If we're talking about patents. Samsung has 128,727.

 

[SockRolid]

Down to 74%. Temporarily.

Oh well. Apple's share of revenue in the entire cell phone industry might drop from 75% to 74%. Until Apple works out a licensing deal with Motorola or wins the appeal.

At least it hasn't affected Apple's stock price (USD 459.83, +4.71 ) as I type...

 

[iBug2]

The same could be said about Apple.

Apple never claimed a motto along the lines of "Don't be evil". Google did. So it's different when Google does evil things compared to when Apple does. At least Apple doesn't try to hide behind a lie.

I wish Google started selling products instead of information. We'd be much better off with a paid search, Google+, Youtube etc services with no advertisement and much better privacy. I don't think many of us would be not ok with not paying couple bucks a year to Google to become their actual clients.

----------

Apple sued Samsung for having a "rectangular" tablet.... That is the lowest of the low.

Since there are no other shapes of displays made, a tablet can only be rectangle. So I found that amusing as well.

But if you actually looked at the lawsuit it was about much more than just the shape.

 

[gnasher729]

Different price segments, so while some people may pick a 4S instead of a 4, they will lose sales to Samsung/HTC/etc, and some will just wait. In the end this will be a net negative for Apple.

Not if Apple later wins a court case. In which case Motorola would have to pay for all the damages. That would make it a big net negative for Motorola. Or for Google.

I recall the 4 being the most sold phone and the 3GS being the second most sold phone before the 4S was released, so I'm pretty sure that both it and the 4 is still very high up in sales lists.

There was an article here on MacRumors just a few days ago, with a claim that 3GS and 4 were just 4% and 7% of the total iPhone sales.

You're right. Samsung are copying everything, down to the rectangular face and (how dare they!) having a screen with a bezel!

You showed a photo of the front of a Samsung photo frame, made in 2006. You neglected however to show the side or the back of that photo frame, as shown here http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/23/samsungs-digital-picture-frame-was-no-ipad/ . A design patent is for the design as a whole, not for some aspect of a design. Apple's design patent consists of a large number of design properties ("rectangular with rounded corners" being just one of them), and to infringe on the design patent, a product must match all of these design properties. A side view of that photo frame would have showed clearly that as far as design patents go, Samsung 2006 photo frame and iPad are totally unrelated. Front similar or identical, side view completely different, back view completely different, means that they are unrelated.

It also means that if a Samsung tablet in 2012 looked identical to their 2006 photo frame, then Apple wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. On the other hand, if Samsung tried to sell a tablet that looked identical, including a view from the side and the back, to their 2006 photo frame, people would either laugh or start crying or both.

 

[sazivad]

...And we're talking about a closed, unlicensed platform, on a limited number of devices.

Sigh... although I agree, just take a look at *LTD*'s post history. About one in every three posts mention how iOS is a closed, unlicensed platform, on a limited number of devices.

No matter how true it is, it doesn't help your credibility to repeat the same facts over and over again.

 

[kdarling]

Apple by law must defend its patents or they will losing them.

You're thinking of trademarks and trade dress.

Patents do not need constant defending.

The problem with this strategy is that many of Motorola/Google/Samsung's patents are technical specifications that are now industry standards, and therefor suing the competition is monopolistic and illegal.

On the contrary, the whole point of putting them in a group of patents that forges a standard, is to let others make use of them.

It would be more monopolistic if they instead withheld them all for only their own use.

Lol.

Apple has been awarded 25,587 patent inventions. Steven P. Jobs is included in 323 of them.

I looked at the Jobs ones.

Over 85% of those patents are ornamental design patents (in much of the world they wouldn't even be called patents.) For example, along with a dozen other employees, he helped decide the look of the Mac Mini case.

Of the remaining 44 utility patents, his name is usually far down the list of contributors. (It is not required, but Apple seems to list names in order of who had the most input in almost all their patents.)

Of the handful that do have his name at or next to the top, they're pretty simple ones that anyone here could've come up with. An example would be using the iPhone's onscreen slider to agree to power off... pretty obvious since it was also used for the inital unlocking. Another is changing the shape of an icon while it's being dragged.

The major exception is of course the so-called "iPhone patent", which ceremonially lists Jobs at the very top, just above SVP Scott Forstall.

There was an article here on MacRumors just a few days ago, with a claim that 3GS and 4 were just 4% and 7% of the total iPhone sales.

That was during 4Q 2011, when the 4S came out. Before that, there were surveys saying that the 3GS was selling almost even with the 4.

 

[*LTD*]

No matter how true it is, it doesn't help your credibility to repeat the same facts over and over again.

It doesn't help others' credibility to keep missing it, and come to wrong conclusions in the process.

Some things bear repetition in order for them to sink in.

 

[menithings]

If we're talking about patents. Samsung has 128,727.

ROTFL

I proved that your "Apple doesn't invent" statement is patently false (pun intended) and instead of admitting you are wrong, you just change the subject.

BTW the Samsung patent warchest you introduced in lue of admitting you don't know what your talking about is an entirely different discussion, and in no way validates your delusional statement that "Apple doesn't invent" lol.

 

[Renzatic]

Hey, guys! How you all doing? Arguing in another patent thread, I see.

I like company X. Therefore, when Company X get sued, it's a cheesy tactic by those shifty eyed Company Y guys. They're just jealous that Company X is so innovative. But when company X sues, it's completely justified, because Company Y steals stuff from everyone.

 

[Can't Stop]

Sigh... although I agree, just take a look at *LTD*'s post history. About one in every three posts mention how iOS is a closed, unlicensed platform, on a limited number of devices.

No matter how true it is, it doesn't help your credibility to repeat the same facts over and over again.

Wait ... what? So if i keep saying that gravity pulls us down 1000 times 1001 time it won't?

Facts are facts.

 

[menithings]

You're thinking of trademarks and trade dress.

Patents do not need constant defending.

Wrong. Patents do need to be defended or risk becoming public domain outside of the US.

On the contrary, the whole point of putting them in a group of patents that forges a standard, is to let others make use of them.

It would be more monopolistic if they instead withheld them all for only their own use.

I looked at the Jobs ones.
Over 85% of those patents are ornamental design patents (in much of the world they wouldn't even be called patents.) For example, along with a dozen other employees, he helped decide the look of the Mac Mini case.

Of the remaining 44 utility patents, his name is usually far down the list of contributors. (It is not required, but Apple seems to list names in order of who had the most input in almost all their patents.)

Of the handful that do have his name at or next to the top, they're pretty simple ones that anyone here could've come up with. An example would be using the iPhone's onscreen slider to agree to power off... pretty obvious since it was also used for the inital unlocking. Another is changing the shape of an icon while it's being dragged.

The major exception is of course the so-called "iPhone patent", which ceremonially lists Jobs at the very top, just above SVP Scott Forstall.

Huh? I listed Steve Jobs contribution as a matter of interest and nothing more. Using the small percentage of Apple patents that Jobs was included in to somehow prove that Apple's tens of thousands of other patents are not worthy of being considered inventions is an absurd and flawed argument.

It's responses like these that further convince me that Apple's doing the right thing defending its game changing innovation against cheesy copycats and wannabe's like Motorola, Google and Samsung.

 

[kiljoy616]

I generally against patents, but at least Apple sues using "easy to understand" patents, not like Samsung suing using the 3G patent that Broadcom pay for and Google(Motorola) suing Apple using the "synchronizing email" patent?

Come on, Google and Samsung are bad, really bad companies right now. They steal and lie to users.

http://www.cultofmac.com/116250/samsung-does-not-copy-apple-at-all-sure/

Well said, way to many degenerate companies wanting a piece of Apple hard work.

 

[Renzatic]

It's responses like these that further convince me that Apple's doing the right thing defending its game changing innovation against cheesy copycats and wannabe's like Motorola, Google and Samsung.

This man here? He's a fan of Company X. If he were a fan of Company Y, some of the names would be switched around.

And that's really all these patent arguments come down to. Showing what company you're a fan of by vigorously defending them on some inane talking point. No matter who you like, it's always the same argument. Blah copied blah, or blah doesn't own bleh, and bloo should defend their bluh otherwise they risk losing everything.

 

[the8thark]

You must be new here. Welcome!

Define interesting. If it isn't 'blindly Apple-supporting', then I suggest you click on his username, select 'Find more posts by *LTD*', take a gander and get back to me.

Enjoy your stay

I am not new here as you'll see. I've posted here long enough (and lurked here for a long time before I joined up. I will not argue with you over *LTD*. I've read many many of his posts and most of them are not that bad at all, a few were quite the good read. We can just agree to disagree.

And thank you. I will keep enjoying my stay here. While continuing to enjoy *LTD*'s quality posts.

 

[menithings]

This man here? He's a fan of Company X. If he were a fan of Company Y, some of the names would be switched around.

And that's really all these patent arguments come down to. Showing what company you're a fan of by vigorously defending them on some inane talking point. No matter who you like, it's always the same argument. Blah copied blah, or blah doesn't own bleh, and bloo should defend their bluh otherwise they risk losing everything.

Lol. This man is a fan of Google's search technology, Samsung's display technology, and Apple's consumer technology. This man is not a fan of Samsung/Motorola/Google's iphone/ipad rip offs, or Apple's half-assed failures like Ping and MobileMe.

But since I actually have a preference in one category, somehow I'm a fanboy. Lol.

 

[craznar]

I am thinking of patenting the process of wiping one's ass.

If successful, then everyone one the planet who takes a dump will have to pay me patent royalties.

Or you could just end up surrounded by a few billion people that don't wipe their arse.