Google Signs Off on Motorola Lawsuit Seeking Injunction Against iPhone 4S and iCloud

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 25, 2012.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Motorola Mobility has filed a new lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Apple, asserting six patents against the iPhone 4S and iCloud. As noted by FOSS Patents, the merger agreement between Google and Motorola Mobility requires the company to get Google's permission before asserting "any Intellectual Property Right in any new Action". As a result, this lawsuit is the closest Apple and Google have come to direct litigation.


    All six patents are asserted against the iPhone 4S, with four ('119, '006, '531, and '161) asserted against iCloud. The patents Apple is charged with violating, as assembled by FOSS Patents, are:
    On its face, the lawsuit is fairly unexceptional -- one of many lawsuits flying around the mobile sector -- but as Google needed to sign off before it could be filed, it could be a signal of the direction Google intends to head if its proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility is successful.

    Article Link: Google Signs Off on Motorola Lawsuit Seeking Injunction Against iPhone 4S and iCloud
  2. TMar macrumors 68000


    Jul 20, 2008
    Just think what the world would be like it Ford patented 4 door cars, car trunks, four wheels on a horseless carriage and the steering wheel. It would be the five wheel three door volt!

    I hate generalized patents!
  3. Jayse macrumors regular

    Jun 29, 2010
    Sydney, Australia
    And for that very reason, i don't see Google & Motorola being the victors here...
  4. X5-452 macrumors 6502


    Feb 16, 2006
    Calgary, Canada
    Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: 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)

    I have a feeling that the only people who will lose during all these lawsuits are us - the users.
  5. CylonGlitch macrumors 68030


    Jul 7, 2009
    This one "5,754,119" boggles my mind how it could ever be allowed. First off it talks specifically and only about pagers. We aren't using pagers here. But I can see where they say that the phone uses pager type features to communicate the user status (such as if they are online, or if they are busy, etc). That, I guess is a reasonable assumption to make. But wait, this patent was filed in 1995; wasn't this same functionality already done via IRC that has been around since 1988? Why yes, it has. So how the heck could someone patent it after it was already invented and in use by someone else?

    Oddly enough, this is the patent that seems to be upheld in Europe! These patents are just stupid and out of control!
  6. BC2009 macrumors 68000


    Jul 1, 2009
    This whole thing will clear up soon. We may start to see these companies resuming talks of cross-licesning this year. The only thing Apple should be pursuing vehemently is trade-dress violations by Samsung (i.e.: Samsung packaging and accessories looking just like Apple's). These sort of things are misleading to the consumer. The whole iPad design patent thing is not going to do anything but stall Samsung since the iPad looks like a large iPhone, just like the JooJoo, just like the Galaxy Tab. Apple's design patent on iPhone does not extend to tablets, but the current round of tablets are an obvious leap from iPhone design. Obvious leaps from prior art pretty much preclude IP protection.
  7. polaris20 macrumors 68020

    Jul 13, 2008
    Probably because he's trolling.
  8. daxomni macrumors 6502

    Jun 24, 2009
    Presumably he meant fascists instead of communists?
  9. ravenvii macrumors 604


    Mar 17, 2004
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    Not *that* much different. The patents would expire ~1935 and it'll be all smooth sailing onwards.
  10. HangmanSwingset macrumors 6502


    Feb 28, 2011
    Everett, WA
    If the iPhone 3GS and the Droid Incredible are secretly the same thing, I have to get rid of my phone. Now.
  11. jluster macrumors newbie

    Jan 25, 2012
    Dallas, TX
    Likely because most Android devices have a browser that can (and often will) spoof other UAs. I am writing this on a Samsung Galaxy SII, what does my UA say? :)
  12. Shrink macrumors G3


    Feb 26, 2011
    New England, USA
    You are undoubtedly correct.:D

    Either way, just a wee bit hyperbolic, n'est pas. ;)
  13. rmwebs macrumors 68040

    Apr 6, 2007
    I'm guessing you'll also agree that Apple shouldn't win cases where they claim people copies their black border, or their corners then?


    How exactly are they FORCING you when you have an iPhone? Did they FORCE you to get G+? No. You OPTED to get it, knowing full well that they had rights to use that data. Just like Apple has rights to use any and all data they collect on you. So does pretty much every_single_website you visit with a terms of service that you agreed to.


    IIRC Mercury for iOS lets you change your user agent. Nice try tho ;)
  14. hdfonts macrumors newbie

    Apr 15, 2008
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Device touches air

    Motorola forgot to patent that their devices touch air, therefore no other device can touch air. They could've potentially sued everyone on the planet.
  15. k1121j macrumors 6502a


    Mar 28, 2009
    New Hampshire
    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)

    seriously a patent on a consealed antenna. the stupid thing if from 1995 I think we need patents but come on the is redicolus
  16. marksman macrumors 603


    Jun 4, 2007
    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)

    It is clear to me googles mobile future is with Motorola and a new os. Android is essentially eol now. Sure it may see one or two major updates but google will eventually pull their support.
  17. Rocketman, Jan 25, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2012

    Rocketman macrumors 603


    Apple has a file that establishes without doubt Google promised, and breached, an agreement not to compete with Apple in fields their CEO was privy to at BOD meetings.

    This has two distinct problems for Google.

    1. Anti-trust violation for agreeing

    2. Fraud and treble damages for agreeing and breaching

    Catch 22-22.

    To top it all off, the political layer. Apple has facilitated this government's political goals. Google has been adverse to them. It seems Google is being spanked soon.

    Free advise to Google. Instruct Motorola to cease all litigation against this defendant. Admit to, and apologize for, the breach re. Apple. Offer a $10+ royalty per Android unit to Apple.

    Keep focused on your business(es).

    That will make Apple and the government your sudden friend. This country is nearly all politics at this time. Learn well.

    Apple's 4/5 antenna is exposed.
  18. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium


    Jan 28, 2009
    Quebec, Canada
    Where the hell did you get that silly idea from ? :confused:

    We're going to need a citation here.
  19. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Oct 9, 2006
    I see it as some one making stuff up.
    The most likely thing was Apple wanted Google on its BOX to keep an eye on them and try to steal stuff from the android project. Something that was well known in the tech world that Google bought it up with a plan to make an OS.
    I also believe Erica kept him well clear of the Android project and did not get involved in the iPhone at Apple. Plus it is not lkk, the bod are involved or even know what is going on day to day or large amount of details of any project. They know the basics and help guide the ship but not the ones running it.
  20. BaldiMac macrumors 604


    Jan 24, 2008
    Speaking of making stuff up.
  21. charlituna, Jan 25, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 27, 2012

    charlituna macrumors G3


    Jun 11, 2008
    Los Angeles, CA
    At that point in time having a conceal antenna was new and novel. Now it is common place. So Apple might be able to get the patent invalidated on the grounds of that common place notion, plus has Motorola sued every company that has such an antenna or just suddenly now (yes sometimes the 'honey badger' is a valid defense in a patent case) and can Apple argue that concealing the antenna is just a natural step in the evolution.

    Same with notions in the other patents. Motorola is also suing over a patent that they claim is being used in iCloud. is it the idea or the actual tech that is the same. is anyone else using the same idea and were they sued for violating the same patent. Is this idea the natural evolution of some prior idea? Going with this, did iTools, dotmac or MobileMe use the same idea/tech and did Motorola file a suit over that. Was this patent before or after those services (which iCloud could be said to have been derived from)
  22. aristotle macrumors 68000


    Mar 13, 2007
    These patents are ridiculous. The iPhone 4 and 4S antenna is not concealed, it is on OUTSIDE of the phone.

    I have to laugh at all of the down voting of comments on here by lurking fandroids. I also find it amusing that I can see the usual suspects posting here in support of Motorola. They also happen to be largely on my ignore list.

    They either work for Google or are paid to post on here by Google.
  23. aristotle macrumors 68000


    Mar 13, 2007
    I'd like to hear logical and coherent explanation from the defenders of Android/Google/Motorola as to why this join action is not illegal collusion between two independent parties given that the buyout has not yet been approved? I doubt we will ever see one but one can alway hold out hope.

    Meanwhile we can all be entertained by the fact that we have been overrun by Android aficionados on a site dedicated to covering "Apple" technology.

    Do you see a lot of Apple product users going on to Android or windows fan sites trying to stir up trouble. No, because many of us have full time jobs in the technology industry so we don't have a lot of spare time to harass people on sites covering technology that supposedly does not interest us.

    I stayed until close to 7pm tonight adding a system cleanup tool to the build at work and kicking off a QA Release package build before heading out the door. I usually work 9am-5pm.

    I suppose people without "real" jobs have to find something to entertain themselves.
  24. Oletros macrumors 603


    Jul 27, 2009
    Premià de Mar
    Can you explain why there is illegal collusion?

    And you know that someone can have products from different companies, don't you?

    I can have an iaphone and a windows PC or I can have a MacBook and an Android phone. The wonderful world of choice
  25. reefoid macrumors regular

    Aug 5, 2011
    What on earth are you on about? I've never heard of such an agreement, do you have evidence? And if such an agreement does exist, and there was anything dodgy about it at all, then since the agreement would have been between Apple and Google, then Apple would be as responsible as Google.

    Of course, this is all irrelevant since this seems to be a non-fact you've pulled out of thin air.

    Its not a joint action, its Moto v Apple. I think you'll find this is normal practice in buyouts, no illegal collusion. Google are committing themselves to a large investment, they have a right to protect themselves against any future risk by requesting authority is sought before such actions start.

Share This Page