Apple Wins Another Legal Battle with Google's Motorola Unit Involving Push Notifications

[kdarling]

Sure, a lot of patents are ridiculous.

Especially software patents.

Sometimes I wonder if & how many people in the USPTO are actually taking bribes to rubber stamp certain applications from certain people/organizations? I wish I knew...but then ignorance is bliss.

There are patent watchdog groups that look for evidence of examiner favoritism, and I don't think they've ever suspected bribery.

Apparently it's more about the whole system being set up to favor quicker decisions. Examiners are rated by quantity over quality these days, and have certain time limits. It is the US government, after all, and there are limited resources.

So what large companies like Apple do, is wear an examiner down. They repeatedly apply, get rejected, modify a few claims, and apply again. They do this until an examiner has spent so much time on it, that he gives up and issues the patent... figuring that it can always be challenged later on.

 

[the8thark]

Yep. Moreover, Apple does the same thing with that info as Google:

100% wrong. Apple use our information for iAd and for their own purposes. But they don't sell our information for their own gains like Google does. Google are the scum/cancer/toxic entity/choose your own bad word here in this space. Google are famous for it.

 

[kdarling]

100% wrong. Apple use our information for iAd and for their own purposes. But they don't sell our information for their own gains like Google does.

You can remove the tin foil hat. Google doesn't sell personal info to anyone.

Both Apple and Google only sell anonymous targeted ad slots. In other words, a company will pay them to display their ads to a certain demographic, and Apple/Google do that without giving away any info to that company.

Targeted slots are valuable. That's why both companies do their best to keep their collected info secret.

Both Apple and Google do give out or sell anonymous aggregated information, such as the number of users of a certain age in a certain region.

As one of their Privacy Policies puts it:

"We also collect non-personal information − data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
...
"Aggregated data is considered non-personal information for the purposes of this Privacy Policy."

 

[fredaroony]

100% wrong. Apple use our information for iAd and for their own purposes. But they don't sell our information for their own gains like Google does. Google are the scum/cancer/toxic entity/choose your own bad word here in this space. Google are famous for it.

Wow you really like to make up stories, don't you? Google does not sell your personal information to anyone as the post below advises.

 

[the8thark]

Wow you really like to make up stories, don't you? Google does not sell your personal information to anyone as the post below advises.

We can agree to disagree. But I have stopped using anything google as a precaution.

 

[fredaroony]

We can agree to disagree. But I have stopped using anything google as a precaution.

That's the good thing about having a choice, you can use whatever makes you happy.

 

[unlinked]

I am sure they sell that to vendors who profile you based on apps for targeted messages.

I'm sure you have exactly nothing to back that claim up with.

 

[the8thark]

That's the good thing about having a choice, you can use whatever makes you happy.

I agree 100%. The more choice we have the better for everyone.

 

[patent10021]

lol some of these arguments from posters saying theres no difference between the implementations.

Let's say for the sake of argument you and another mother give birth to two different babies that look identical. You being the mother know the disposition and personality of your baby.

A nurse has been examining your baby and comes back later with your baby, but you notice from its behaviour that it isn't your baby. You tell the nurse this isn't your baby it must be the woman's next to you because my baby likes to laugh and the nurse says, "Oh don't worry, it's the same baby. Just forget about the fact that your baby laughs more than the other baby. Your baby looks the same and pees and poops the same!".

Would your reply be, "Oh yes, you're right! It's virtually the same baby. I don't care if mine acts a bit differently. A baby is a baby!"?

The implementation may look the same but Apple knows its baby is different.

EDIT: Had to edit my story because I confused myself


.

 

[SusanK]

From patents to obstetrics. Who wouldn't be confused?

 

[JAT]

We can agree to disagree. But I have stopped using anything google as a precaution.

I think you've confused Google with Target.

 

[ravenvii]

lol some of these arguments from posters saying theres no difference between the implementations.

Let's say for the sake of argument you and another mother give birth to two different babies that look identical. You being the mother know the disposition and personality of your baby.

A nurse has been examining your baby and comes back later with your baby, but you notice from its behaviour that it isn't your baby. You tell the nurse this isn't your baby it must be the woman's next to you because my baby likes to laugh and the nurse says, "Oh don't worry, it's the same baby. Just forget about the fact that your baby laughs more than the other baby. Your baby looks the same and pees and poops the same!".

Would your reply be, "Oh yes, you're right! It's virtually the same baby. I don't care if mine acts a bit differently. A baby is a baby!"?

The implementation may look the same but Apple knows its baby is different.

EDIT: Had to edit my story because I confused myself


.

This shows a lack of understanding of patent law. I suggest you abstain from posting until you become better oriented on American patent law.

 

[SockRolid]

But Google became directly involved in the disputes when it acquired Motorola Mobility and its patents in 2011, thereby inheriting existing lawsuits between Apple and Motorola.

Google paid $12.6 billion. For Motorola Mobility.
Oh well, it's a tax-deductible business expense.

Then again, donating the money to charity would also be tax-deductible.

----------

I think you've confused Google with Target.

Target makes money through retail sales.

Google makes money through advertising.
(96% of Google's revenue comes from ads, in case anyone forgot.)

 

[Rocketman]

So the takeaway from all these legal proceedings is Motorola (Google) cannot prevent older Apple iPhone and iPad models from 2-3 years ago from being imported into the USA from China. Right?

Motorola didn't even show an example of the patent in use on their own device after a court order to do so.

Does Apple have any right to redress for costs since the claim had no merit?

 

[gnasher729]

I feel daft reading these things.

Is my understanding of this ruling correct?
Moto patent says "if you delete an app, a message going to the server will say 'this app is deleted' and therefore stop sending notifications"

And the way Apple got around this patent is by doing things in a very slightly different way: "if you delete an app, a message going to the server will say 'push notifications are no longer needed' and therefore stop sending notifications"

Essentially the only difference is the message ("app deleted" vs "no more push please"), the outcome of the transaction is the same.

Is that right? If so, its whack on both angles. The initial patent is whack, and the way Apple got around it is kinda whack too.

That's how it works. What is patented is what the patent says. Consider this: The person writing the patent application decides how precise or unspecific the patent is. If it is more generic then it covers more ground, but there is a better chance that there is prior art. In principle it could be that Apple's method was published before the patent was written. So Motorola had to exclude this from their patent application or it would have been rejected.

On the other hand, it is quite possible that someone at Apple read the patent, decided to avoid infringing, came up with an alternative, asked their lawyers, and there we go.

----------

Wow you really like to make up stories, don't you? Google does not sell your personal information to anyone as the post below advises.

No, they rent it out

----------

It's a design patent. As you know, those cannot cover anything functional. Only ornamental items.

I find it very unfortunate that US law uses the term design patent, because it looks like they are quite exactly the opposite of patents, which causes endless confusion and unnecessary arguments on sites like this one.

 

[trewyn15]

In the aspect of suing everyone for making something work better than their technology, Apple is getting slightly annoying.

 

[the8thark]

I think you've confused Google with Target.

Nope. I mean google.

 

[Renzatic]

Nope. I mean google.

You don't mean Google. I'm not gonna say they've never done anything shady before, because...yeah...they have, but selling private information that can be traced directly to you isn't one of them. Like someone else said previously, the only thing they sell to 3rd parties is demographic information. Just things that state "people who like X tend to visit Y sites" and other completely anonymous blocks of data. And while they probably do have some personal information on you specifically, they'll only use that for targeted ads inhouse. No 3rd party will see any of that.

 

[JAT]

Nope. I mean google.

But you're "100% wrong" about them. So making jokes about it is more fun.

 

[Msail30bay]

100% wrong. Apple use our information for iAd and for their own purposes. But they don't sell our information for their own gains like Google does. Google are the scum/cancer/toxic entity/choose your own bad word here in this space. Google are famous for it.

Have to agree with you. I hate HATE Google, they're like ass-crack sweat...... really annoying. I had gmail for a long time, then signed up for YouTube, had to write a review for someone on Google+, the next thing I know, my gmail account was linked to the other two, caused such a pain and TONS of settings for privacy, which half of them I could not locate at first. So now I use fake names, location, etc. I do not trust them!

 

[gnasher729]

In the aspect of suing everyone for making something work better than their technology, Apple is getting slightly annoying.

Excellent post in a thread about Google suing Apple.

 

[trewyn15]

Excellent post in a thread about Google suing Apple.

Although it is not directly related, it is related. So thank you, sir.

 

[kdarling]

Google paid $12.6 billion. For Motorola Mobility.
Oh well, it's a tax-deductible business expense.

It is that, plus a deal for other reasons.

Google paid the same price per patent buying Motorola, as Apple did going in on buying those Nortel patents.

What did those billions get Apple? They have now assigned all those patents to Rockstar, who's looking to sell most of them, while using a few to troll other companies.

--

Google got Motorola Mobility, which came with $3 billion in cash reserves AND a cell phone company AND a settop box company AND tax write offs.

So $12.5B - $3B cash - $2.4B settop sale ~= $7B. But they also get over $5B in tax write-offs over the next decade.

Total cost after all that? About $1.5 billion, according to Forbes. Pretty good deal, especially since they kept the best parts -- patents and Motorola's phone division.

I find it very unfortunate that US law uses the term design patent, because it looks like they are quite exactly the opposite of patents, which causes endless confusion and unnecessary arguments on sites like this one.

+1

 

[Gasu E.]

Google paid $12.6 billion. For Motorola Mobility.
Oh well, it's a tax-deductible business expense.

Then again, donating the money to charity would also be tax-deductible.

The acquisition cost is not an expense per accounting standards, and is not itself tax deductible. There were many other financial advantages of the acquisition, but deducting the $12.6M acqusition cost from Google profits was not one of them.

 

[patent10021]

I suggest you abstain from posting until you become better oriented on American patent law.

Yes ma'am all mighty forum monitor.

p.s. GFY