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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
65,623
34,221



Several weeks ago, it was reported that Apple was requesting that Motorola be required to put up a $2.7 billion bond should it prove victorious in a German patent case and decide to enforce that ruling against Apple. Such a bond is common practice in the German court system and would be used to compensate Apple for the time its products were out of the market should Apple win on an appeal of the ruling.

Importantly, no such initial ruling has yet been made against Apple, but FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller stated that last month's proceedings had hinted that the judge in the case was skeptical of Apple's defenses against Motorola's claims of infringement of a data synchronization patent by iCloud.

motorola_mobility_logo_wordmark-500x64.jpg



FOSS Patents now follows up with a report from a new hearing on the case in which it was revealed that the $2.7 billion bond requested by Apple was actually an annual sum. With a Motorola lawyer suggesting that the trial and subsequent appeals could drag on until 2018, Apple's bond request could amount to a total of $16.2 billion over a potential six-year period beginning in 2012.
At the hearing two weeks ago, the amount appeared to be an all-time total. Today it was clarified that this is an annual figure. But the period of time for which Motorola Mobility might have to post a bond would span far more than one year.

One of Motorola's lawyers mentioned the year 2018 today. Considering that the relevant cases are up for decision in February 2012, we're then talking (hypothetically) about six years, or six times $2.7 billion, or $16.2 billion.
Mueller points out that the potential bond amount would exceed the $12.5 billion price Google has proposed for purchasing all of Motorola Mobility. He goes on to note that it is unclear whether the judge in the case will accept Apple's claim of a $2.7 billion per-year risk should an injunction be enforced, but that Apple's structure of funneling much of its European operations through the Irish subsidiary targeting in the case could indeed lead to substantial risk for the company.

Motorola would of course also have to enforce a decision against Apple for the bond to be required. The company would not be required to do so, and while continued litigation of the matter might suggest that Motorola would seek to enforce a decision, patent lawsuits are frequently conducted in order to put pressure on competitors to reach some sort of settlement prior to a final judgment being rendered.

Article Link: Apple Requesting Potential Motorola Bond of Up to $16 Billion in German Patent Case
 

leroypants

Suspended
Jul 17, 2010
662
568
:rolleyes: That is just beyond pathetic of apple.

I can see the fanboys are downrating this even though they know it's true.
 
Last edited:

Athonline

macrumors regular
May 11, 2011
127
71
16 Billion from Motorola are actually 16 Billion from Google! Enough money to make Google rethink its Android approach ^^ Plus as the German legal system for patents are worldwide know and point of reference, if the judge rule in favour of Apple similar lawsuits will probably rule in favour of Apple.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,786
41,983
USA
I said this in the other thread - but I don't think Australia has the same laws.

Apple should be forced to put up a bond for damages to Samsung for preventing sales for the next week despite already being ruled against.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
9,182
4,112
Come on Apple come on.

Slowly but surely you are drawing more and more attention from those in REAL power due to your current tactics.

If you carry on, you are going to get punched back officially so hard.
Just keep going. It will happen :D
 

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,636
816
Los Angeles, CA
:rolleyes: That is just beyond pathetic of apple.

Not at all. If Motorola wins it could stop sales of the affected Apple products. Generally when an appeal is filed it doesn't lift the sales ban until the case is heard, which could take years of back and forth filings etc.

And what Apple has asked for is within what local law allows and is deemed SOP for such cases.

Now if Motorola wins and they don't demand a sales ban, or if Apple doesn't win the appeals, no money changes hands because Apple was never blocked from selling and making their money that way.
 

Mike Oxard

macrumors 6502a
Oct 22, 2009
804
458
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple is like the Alien, you don't dare try and kill it :)
 

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,636
816
Los Angeles, CA
I said this in the other thread - but I don't think Australia has the same laws.

Apple should be forced to put up a bond for damages to Samsung for preventing sales for the next week despite already being ruled against.

I believe it is either the Dutch or German courts that require essentially this kind of bond to ask for an injunction. Australia doesn't seem to have such laws so Samsung will have to sue for damages if they win. But they probably won't gt billions since they won't be able to prove there was a chance they would have made that much based on sales elsewhere.

And for the record, Apple was NOT ruled against. The case has not been heard and won't be until like February. This was a request for a preliminary injunction until that time. Under Aussie law a judge can approve such a ban if he/she feels that the final judgement will most likely go to the request or. Bennett felt this was the case. This new judge did not. However he still allowed an extension on the injunction for Apple filed their appeal and someone agreed there was enough merit to hear it AND extend the extension until that date
 
Last edited:

wikus

macrumors 68000
Jun 1, 2011
1,795
2
Planet earth.
16 BILLION?

That makes Microsoft look like an angel even with THEIR history.

Absolutely disgusting. I'd say Apple's 1984 commercial was ironic, but thats a massive understatement.
 

leroypants

Suspended
Jul 17, 2010
662
568
16 BILLION?

That makes Microsoft look like an angel even with THEIR history.

Absolutely disgusting. I'd say Apple's 1984 commercial was ironic, but thats a massive understatement.

Microsoft in their worst day was never as disgusting as Apple had been lately (downrate if your a fanboy).
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
Come on Apple come on.

Slowly but surely you are drawing more and more attention from those in REAL power due to your current tactics.

If you carry on, you are going to get punched back officially so hard.
Just keep going. It will happen :D

Apple loses nothing by employing these tactics. They have the financial wherewithal to continue with this, and the consumer ultimately barely knows about this, nor really care even if it was known.

Apple knows they have a case and are pushing it. More power to them.

This also serves to put Google on notice that Apple is willing to play the game long-term.
 

wikus

macrumors 68000
Jun 1, 2011
1,795
2
Planet earth.
Microsoft in their worst day was never as disgusting as Apple had been lately (downrate if your a fanboy).

I think I'm going to start a list of all the petty crap that Apple has pulled. I may need a new hard drive though, list could get long.

----------

Apple loses nothing by employing these tactics.

Yeah, reputation doesn't exist.

Apple doesnt have a case, they'll lose time, money on their new team of lawyers, etc.
 

Gasu E.

macrumors 603
Mar 20, 2004
5,087
3,205
Not far from Boston, MA.
16 BILLION?

That makes Microsoft look like an angel even with THEIR history.

Absolutely disgusting. I'd say Apple's 1984 commercial was ironic, but thats a massive understatement.

What do you think is the likely annual loss to Apple if iCloud gets shut down in Germany? I take it you think it's a a lot less than $3B, but what is your valuation?
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
Microsoft in their worst day was never as disgusting as Apple had been lately (downrate if your a fanboy).

Apple is not a convicted monopoly abuser.

Apple has to actually reach *this* level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle.

Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows.

In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident.

Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop.

The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.
[8]

Abuse of monopoly, lying (or perjury, provided they were under oath), presenting false evidence in court, etc.

Sorry. Apple is *nothing* like Microsoft. Nothing they've done to date even approaches that.

Microsoft in their worst day was never as disgusting as Apple had been lately (downrate if your a fanboy).

Downrated because you're wrong. Good enough?

----------

Yeah, reputation doesn't exist.

Apple doesnt have a case, they'll lose time, money on their new team of lawyers, etc.

All Apple need is continued consumer mindshare. And these legal activities will have the same effect on sales of Apple gear as they've always had: zero. The last thing the consumer gives a damn about is Apple's legal activities. They just want the next iPad and iPhone. Thats's what the game is about. There are no other considerations involved.

"No, son/dear, you can't have that iPad this Christmas because Apple is being mean in court." LOL if you think this scenario has any basis in reality you need your head checked. The average consumer doesn't think that way, not even remotely, and never will. No matter how much this Apple vs. Samsung business gets reported, it a) won't help Samsung sell a product that no one really wants, and b) won't register with the consumer to any substantial degree.

Get real. This isn't the United States vs. Microsoft. It's some shady Korean appliance-maker (https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13394128/) vs. Apple.

No one really cares except for the litigants.
 
Last edited:

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
Under Aussie law a judge can approve such a ban if he/she feels that the final judgement will most likely go to the request or. Bennett felt this was the case. This new judge did not.

That is incorrect, the injunction has not been granted because the judge felt that Apple would win the case, the injunction was granted because she thought it would be more damaging for the winner not granting the injunction and Apple winning the case that granting the injunction and then Samsung winning the case.
 

writingdevil

macrumors 6502
Feb 11, 2010
254
32
yep

16 Billion from Motorola are actually 16 Billion from Google! Enough money to make Google rethink its Android approach ^^ Plus as the German legal system for patents are worldwide know and point of reference, if the judge rule in favour of Apple similar lawsuits will probably rule in favour of Apple.

so far, most of the posts don't indicate the poster has any knowledge at all of corporate operations, how lawsuits are leveraged from both prosecutors and defense, of copyright value to companies who invest in creating, funding, developing, manufacturing and distribution. it's like...let's throw all that out the window and just let corporations do what they want. who cares?

when the tone is mostly....aww, come on, apple, it reminds me of what my Pops said Rodney King said after his beat up....can't we just all get along? just doesn't work that way. if entities can take what they want, copy what they want, and their actions are ignored, then why bother to create at all, whether it's computer designs, music, medical equipment or anything that has value to society at large.

it's really got nothing at all to do with being a fanboy (or fangirl, as i have several female friends who are fans of different stuff) but with the ability to be entrepreneurial and invest time, energy and love in what you create and being able to benefit from your creation. if apple violates, they too have to pay the piper, as it should be.
 

Apple Knowledge Navigator

macrumors 68040
Mar 28, 2010
3,677
12,836
Apple is becoming the very thing it fought against in 1984.

Great pity, because their arrogance in recent years has been astounding. They contribute a lot to many industries, of course, but a large market share should not influence the power that they have over other important contributions that are made - regardless of their value or form. Without those contributions, customers have no choice, and if they have no choice, Apple feel that they can govern what technology passes by.

What gets to me is that Apple seem to pick and choose how and when they protect their products. They're going to ridiculous lengths to prove that Samsung and others have 'copied' the tablet design of the iPad, yet not once have they complained when other manufacturers such as HP have released descent all-in-one desktop computers, akin to the iMac.

This just proves how important their portable devices are to them now, and how they seek to 'protect' them for the foreseeable future, since Apple is as S. Jobs suggested a "mobile devices company".
 
Last edited:

dr Dunkel

macrumors regular
Nov 3, 2008
218
0
So, Apple is that sure of loss in the court case.

I just hope the final bond is kept low enough to make it possible for Motorola to fend itself from Apple's IP theft.
 
Last edited:

leroypants

Suspended
Jul 17, 2010
662
568
lying (or perjury, provided they were under oath), presenting false evidence in court, etc.

Sorry. Apple is *nothing* like Microsoft. Nothing they've done to date even approaches that.
.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/ap...unction-was-seriously-misleading-as-in-false/

apples-flawed-evidence.jpg


According to Dutch IDG publication Webwereld.nl, the image used for a side-by-side comparison between the iPad 2 and the GalTab 10.1 is either wrong or manipulated. On page 28 of Apple’s filing, the image of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been cropped and the image ratio has been tampered with. Samsung’s tablet measures in at 10.1in x 6.9in x 0.34in, while the iPad 2 sports dimensions of 9.5in x 7.31in x .34in.


So if you were looking at the tablets side-by-side (both in portrait position), you’d notice that the iPad 2 is a bit wider from side to side, but shorter in length. Based on the specified dimensions, the aspect ratio of the GalTab would be 1.46. In Apple’s evidential image, the aspect ratio is 1.36 (8 percent wider than it should be), making the Galaxy Tab 10.1′s “overall appearance” look “practically identical” to the iPad 2 (which has an aspect ratio of 1.30). And that’s exactly the language Apple used in its complaint — also on page 28.

images
 

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,566
I said this in the other thread - but I don't think Australia has the same laws.

Apple should be forced to put up a bond for damages to Samsung for preventing sales for the next week despite already being ruled against.

Samsung could have asked for it. If they didn't, then your opinion doesn't matter.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.