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

[CylonGlitch]

The claims also do not mention particular devices, referring to them as transceivers, claim 1 as an example :

....

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.

I understand this but if you look at what they are patenting; it had been around for a long time before the patent was issued. There were chat systems long before 1995; some of which did operate on phones. But it shouldn't be hard to show that being a wireless devices (the Transceivers don't have to be wireless) doesn't matter, the underlying technology existed and thus anyone knowledgeable in the industry could easily implement this with what existed by changing the transport media. Thus should be invalidated. More specifically, in this case, the application layer is basically the same as something like IRC, but potentially the transport layer is different although the transport layer is never called out. The patent is an application layer claim.

My guess is that the defense attorneys are not attacking the patent this way. I don't know the details of the ruling in the EU but it looks like it shouldn't be holding water but it is. Not sure why.

 

[KnightWRX]

I understand this but if you look at what they are patenting; it had been around for a long time before the patent was issued. There were chat systems long before 1995;

Look at all the claims. A patent is a sum of claims.

 

[subsonix]

it had been around for a long time before the patent was issued. There were chat systems long before 1995; some of which did operate on phones. But it shouldn't be hard to show that being a wireless devices (the Transceivers don't have to be wireless) doesn't matter, the underlying technology existed and thus anyone knowledgeable in the industry could easily implement this with what existed by changing the transport media. Thus should be invalidated. More specifically, in this case, the application layer is basically the same as something like IRC, but potentially the transport layer is different although the transport layer is never called out. The patent is an application layer claim.

I agree with this, they can not involve transport or link layers here since they are open standards. For Apples wireless products it would be IP and link layers like wifi, bluetooth and 3g.

Unless Apple is exactly using the protocol described, I can't see how the patent could be used. If they have used the same protocol, then that is different, but they could then potentially just synchronize with a different method.

 

[MarcelV]

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!

That patent would have been invalidated with prior art. Ford invented the assembly line for cars, not the car. And Karl Benz did patent the automobile. It was around 1886.

 

[jhende7]

Ha! Most of these patents are almost 20 years old. Sounds like a last ditch effort to arrange a favorable licensing agreement that extends beyond the expiration date.

Apple should throw these has-beens a bone. At least a couple million to justify the $12B google acquisition lol.