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

Amazing Iceman

macrumors 68040
Nov 8, 2008
3,922
1,504
Florida, U.S.A.
A great example of companies that recently released a market failure and now are roaming without a good product to release, so they decide to sue based on whatever excuse they can come up with.
Motorola could have sued long ago; not just Apple, but several other companies. They are just using their last cards in the patent game.

It's all just plain ridiculous!
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
A great example of companies that recently released a market failure and now are roaming without a good product to release, so they decide to sue based on whatever excuse they can come up with.

Motorola could have sued long ago; not just Apple, but several other companies. They are just using their last cards in the patent game.



It's all just plain ridiculous!
The original suit is from 2.010.


Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
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.
If Motorola has the patent before any prior art can be shown, then no, Apple can't have it invalidated on those grounds. And you can sit on a patent as long as you like, there is no provisions in patent law in the US that you must enforce your patents or that you can't enforce them selectively. You're thinking trademarks.

Basically, if all the claims in the patent (not just the abstract about "concealed antennas") hold up, Apple will have to pay or implement their antenna differently (no software fix for that!), just like Samsung/HTC had to modify their software once found in infringment of Apple's patents.

----------

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'm not a defender of anyone (neither Google/Android/Motorola or Apple or Nokia or RIM or Samsung), but I'll answer you : How is it collusion ? Apple are suing Motorola, Motorola is counter-suing. They need approval from Google because of the buyout contract and got it.

What more are you looking for here ?

----------

I can have an iaphone and a windows PC or I can have a MacBook and an Android phone. The wonderful world of choice
Or I can have an Apple phone, an Apple laptop, and still objectively look at all this patent stuff and realise that all there is right now is chaos because everyone is suing each other and no firm decisions have been reached.

They all make good and bad moves, no one player is better than another in all of this.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
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.
Apple has already run into court pushback on most trade dress, because they never advertised shapes or packaging. As everyone knows, Apple ads are all about using apps, instead of case or packaging appearance.

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.
There is no "common place" or "honey badger" patent defense. In fact, sometimes it's considered smart to wait for a while to make the lawsuit worthwhile in damages. It's only if they waited more than six years to sue, that delays become an issue.

The concealed antenna patent is interesting, since it's about making use of external decorative parts such as a trim ring around a display or keyboard. The iPhone 4 and 4S fit that description.

Yet so do many other cell phones over the past decade (Apple was not the first to do that), so I'm wondering if Motorola has licensed this particular patent before. If they have, it makes it that much more powerful.

However, I think Apple can argue that their antenna design is not the same as the simple loop antenna mentioned in the patent, as I believe their outside trim forms part of a much different slot antenna.
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
Apple spent $100 million on legal fees, got a few injunctions, lost a few claims, but sent a pretty clear message. They just had the biggest 4th quarter of any company ever.

Google spent $12 billion on a near-dead company, known for lousy products and even worse service, to countersue Apple with. Google posted a lame holiday quarter.

Who's got more bang for the buck here?
 

ThunderSkunk

macrumors 68030
Dec 31, 2007
2,929
2,457
Milwaukee Area
Hm. I don't know why I just read this thread. Another day, another cellphone patent lawsuit. Can I do anything about any of it? No. Are there more pressing things to care about in the world? Millions. This information nor the rampant armchair speculation upon it adds any value to my life.

...there goes 2/3 of the Internet.
 

Rocketman

macrumors 603
I pulled ATNN "out of thin air" and the iPad shipped more units than PC's this quarter. The thing to focus on in my post is the political layer. Google is not stupid. They doubled their lobbying expense this year.

Although what you call thin air is informed speculation. When you know a few peripheral internal facts and a variety of public facts the intersections are interesting.

Keep posting whatever. It is a lot of nothing most of the time.

Let's see if iPhone 5 rolls out in quite a few more countries initially this time as I said in another thread.

Rocketman
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
I pulled ATNN "out of thin air" and the iPad shipped more units than PC's this quarter. The thing to focus on in my post is the political layer. Google is not stupid. They doubled their lobbying expense this year.

Although what you call thin air is informed speculation. When you know a few peripheral internal facts and a variety of public facts the intersections are interesting.

Keep posting whatever. It is a lot of nothing most of the time.

Let's see if iPhone 5 rolls out in quite a few more countries initially this time as I said in another thread.

Rocketman
So do you or do you not have evidence of this "agreement" between Apple and Google when Eric joined their board or not ?

I'm confused, are you now back tracking and saying you were merely speculating ?
 

daxomni

macrumors 6502
Jun 24, 2009
453
0
Apple spent $100 million on legal fees, got a few injunctions, lost a few claims, but sent a pretty clear message. They just had the biggest 4th quarter of any company ever. Google spent $12 billion on a near-dead company, known for lousy products and even worse service, to countersue Apple with. Google posted a lame holiday quarter. Who's got more bang for the buck here?
Have you ever written a single demonstrably objective comment in your entire life? Apple is doing great revenue and profit wise, no doubt, but their legal wranglings have not been going so well. Any judgement on the relevance and benefit/detriment of the Google and Motorola match-up is still extremely premature.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
I pulled ATNN "out of thin air" and the iPad shipped more units than PC's this quarter. The thing to focus on in my post is the political layer. Google is not stupid. They doubled their lobbying expense this year.

Although what you call thin air is informed speculation. When you know a few peripheral internal facts and a variety of public facts the intersections are interesting.

Keep posting whatever. It is a lot of nothing most of the time.

Let's see if iPhone 5 rolls out in quite a few more countries initially this time as I said in another thread.

Rocketman
so you don't have anything to back your claim and it was just fruit of your fantasy
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
Have you ever written a single demonstrably objective comment in your entire life?
Don't get upset with me because the facts tend to have a pro-Apple bias. Not my fault, I only mention them.
Apple is doing great revenue and profit wise, no doubt, but their legal wranglings have not been going so well.
Does it even matter at this point? Look at their most recent quarter. Apple can lose every claim and still continue with legal proceedings unfettered. They believe their interests are at stake. They have the right to champion them in court, same as anyone else.
 

Imhotep397

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
254
1
Should be interesting Apple had all of those things implemented in computers since well before the Motorola patents and the iPhone for that matter. The big thing with all of these cases is to essentially clarify the fact that the iPhone is a computer that works on telephone network bandwidth while mobile phones are basically phones with some computer functionality, a stolen UI and face form.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
Should be interesting Apple had all of those things implemented in computers since well before the Motorola patents and the iPhone for that matter. The big thing with all of these cases is to essentially clarify the fact that the iPhone is a computer that works on telephone network bandwidth while mobile phones are basically phones with some computer functionality, a stolen UI and face form.
Well, German judges don't think they have implemented before Motorola, so the innjunction
 

Rajani Isa

macrumors 65816
Jun 8, 2010
1,146
56
Rogue Valley, Oregon
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!
But IRC isn't a wireless device. I would presume the patent is specific to this functionality as it would appy to pagers/cell phones.
These patents are ridiculous. The iPhone 4 and 4S antenna is not concealed, it is on OUTSIDE of the phone.
The antenna, in so far as it is not the rubber nub or an actual "pull to extend" antenna, is concealed. Note the patent was for a concealed EXTERNAL antenna - things like the razor, as far as I know, used an internally concealed antenna.

We know that steel band is in a large part an (rather, two/three) antenna, but give it to someone from the 90's and they'd say it has no antenna.
 

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
I don't see how "U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119" could fly. Apple can simply say: "Well, it's not a pager" :)
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
I don't see how "U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119" could fly. Apple can simply say: "Well, it's not a pager" :)
They can try, but the claims and description do not only apply this patent to pagers, only the abstract. From the description :

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to the field of two-way communication devices and, in particular, to information managed therein.
The claims also do not mention particular devices, referring to them as transceivers, claim 1 as an example :

1. A method of synchronizing message information among a plurality of transceivers comprising the steps of:

transmitting by a wireless messaging infrastructure a first message having a first status;

in one transceiver of the plurality of transceivers, changing the first status of the first message to a second status responsive to an input to the one transceiver, and transmitting a second message indicative of the second status;

in the wireless messaging infrastructure, receiving the second message, and responsive to receiving the second message, transmitting a third message indicative of the second status; and

in at least one other transceiver of the plurality of transceivers, receiving the third message, and responsive to receiving the third message, changing the first status of the first message to the second status.
Finally, you picked the worst patent to say it doesn't apply, as Motorola already has a favorable decision with this one in their pocket against Apple in the EU (with the EU equivalent patent obviously) and people think Apple will lose the appeal scheduled in February.
 

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
The abstract on the other hand mentions nothing but pagers. And looking at this generally, it's much to broad to be likely to succeed as it would apply to all kind of synchronization, meaning Motorola could sue almost everyone with some kind of cloud service or backup system, which also keep data in sync.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
The abstract on the other hand mentions nothing but pagers.
Yep, but again, the abstract means nothing in a court case. It's the claims that are important. A lot of patents sound very generic and blatantly obvious in the abstract and yet fall apart and become very specific in the claims. That is why sometimes people think a court case is a given win for a patent holder (based on the abstract), but in the end the court sides with the defendant (the claims do not match the defendant's implementation).

And looking at this generally, it's much to broad to be likely to succeed as it would apply to all kind of synchronization, meaning Motorola could sue almost everyone with some kind of cloud service or backup system, which also keep data in sync.
There is no such thing as "much too broad" and it has already succeeded, a point you have now conveniently ignored twice. This wouldn't be the first time a patent holder has a broad patent where they can "sue everyone".

Argue all you want about it, Motorola has a win with this patent in their pocket already, a win most everyone is expect to get confirmed by the appeal's court.

In the end, what is it to you ? It's not the first time Apple is found in infringement of a patent, it won't be the last. With patents being what they are, there's just no way in this day and age you can make a device without stepping on someone else's patent, not to mention you probably can't know about it until you get sued.
 

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
Argue all you want about it, Motorola has a win with this patent in their pocket already, a win most everyone is expect to get confirmed by the appeal's court.
I may just save this quote for later use. :D

In the end, what is it to you ? It's not the first time Apple is found in infringement of a patent, it won't be the last. With patents being what they are, there's just no way in this day and age you can make a device without stepping on someone else's patent, not to mention you probably can't know about it until you get sued.
Well what is it to you? It annoys me if this will succeed since it's a BS patent, using open technology like TCP/IP is okay as long as you don't synchronize data in any form, because Motorola synchronized their pagers in the early 90's.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
I may just save this quote for later use. :D
Later use what ? I'm simply quoting the initial Macrumors post. The comment is factual, based on stories in the media on Motorola's win in German court on december 9th, a decision set for appeal in february, where Motorola is expected to win by the media.

These stories are linked to in the initial post, what the future holds is unknown and the Appeal's court could still side with Apple, but what would be your point in "future use", it still wouldn't change the factual context in which the comment was made. :confused:

Or are you thinking this is my opinion and you want to try to rub it in my face as if I would somehow care ?

Is this the level of conversation I must expect with you ? Because tell me right now if it is, I will simply move you to ignore if you're not ready to discuss this maturely based on the facts we do have.

Well what is it to you? It annoys me if this will succeed since it's a BS patent, using open technology like TCP/IP is okay as long as you don't synchronize data in any form, because Motorola synchronized their pagers in the early 90's.
It's as BS as Apple's Community Design Registration. So what ? In the end, it's a battle between corporations.

What is it to me ? A way to pass the time, a subject I'm interested in for entertainment purposes. In the end, my life will go on no matter who wins/loses. I'm not siding with anyone here and neither should you be. That's just unneeded stress.
 

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,013
3,236
South Dakota, USA
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
Count me as another person who enjoys different products from different companies. I really enjoy my iPad, but I decided to get a Droid RAZR for a phone so I could enjoy what both platforms have to offer. My phone doesn't have to be exactly the same as my tablet. I also have a Windows 7 notebook supplied by my work, but an iMac at home. I enjoy using different technology and although I prefer my iMac slightly over my Windows 7 PC each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Just because a person doesn't have everything Apple doesn't mean they can't be a fan of Apple or post on this site.