Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motorola Wins Legal Victory Over Apple in Germany, Impact Disputed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You mean like Apple had Samsung products banned in Germany? Are you forgetting Apple are the ones who started these ridiculous patent cases?
Wow, like I did not know that Motorola was still making phones. Live and learn. In fact, maybe they are going out of business soon and are looking to become patent trolls.
Ridiculous?
Have you been keeping up with current events?
Apple got injunction after injunction (substantial, not hollow) against Samsung.
It would have been "ridiculous" if Apple's case had no merit and they were still pursuing it.
But it seems the joke is on Apple's targets. Apple have shown themselves to be uncommonly skilled and prescient when it comes to litigation. These guys are Pros, going back to the very early years of the company.
What we're seeing against Samsung is nothing. This is a small piece of a much wider effort by Apple.
Here's the latest:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news...tent-use-in-apple-lawsuit-investigated-by-eu/
Last edited:
The hypocrisy of some of these comments boggle the mind
Apple Fan after Apple litigation: Motorola/Samsung copied Apple's appearance! They shouldn't be allowed to do that! Apple should sue them until Motorola/Samsung can't sell competing products.
Apple Fan after Moto litigation: Apple copied Motorola's technology! Leave Apple alone because they need that technology to make devices. Motorola should be fair to Apple because not allowing them to use their technology isn't right.
Reading that, its not hard to see why a lot of us are sickened by Apple's approach. They use other people's tech all the time, but turn around and sue other people who follow industry standards. They are a bunch of trolls and I hope Google/Moto/Samsung/Microsoft makes them a minority player again in the coming decade as they were in the 80's and 90's.
Apple Fan after Apple litigation: Motorola/Samsung copied Apple's appearance! They shouldn't be allowed to do that! Apple should sue them until Motorola/Samsung can't sell competing products.
Apple Fan after Moto litigation: Apple copied Motorola's technology! Leave Apple alone because they need that technology to make devices. Motorola should be fair to Apple because not allowing them to use their technology isn't right.
Reading that, its not hard to see why a lot of us are sickened by Apple's approach. They use other people's tech all the time, but turn around and sue other people who follow industry standards. They are a bunch of trolls and I hope Google/Moto/Samsung/Microsoft makes them a minority player again in the coming decade as they were in the 80's and 90's.
In the case of Apple because there are plans inside plans inside plans.
in the case of Motorola, because they are incompetents
Seriously, ask yourself which company is more likely to be incompetent - Apple or Motorola?
Do you really think maybe Apple just forgot about the lawsuit? Someone just dropped the ball on that? Maybe they were using MobileMe and the calendar event didn't sync?
Unfortunately (for some), Apple's bankroll and the consumer have decided that outcome to be unlikely.
But you can always hope.
It is a good strategy. If someone were to launch a lawsuit against someone on the other side of town because you were dumping garbage on their lawn, would you defend the person you don't know? If they were to defend this lawsuit, they would be admitting it had standing. Apple will probably just keep on selling their stuff. If Moto attempts to get the injunction enforced, Apple will counter sue.
I think this would allow Apple to show that Moto is using their FRAND patents to harm them ... and that then Moto risk having them taken away ...
I suspect strategic. They might need an action by Motorola to block use of the patents in a forceable way to prove a FRAND violation. Especially if said patents aren't on the record as requiring FRAND treatment. Now they can argue that and have the action to back it up. Could even be that Apple wants to be able to ask for damages and they need this injunction to do that. Otherwise all they might end up with is a court forced agreement to accept royalties at the going rate. And Motorola gets no slap on the hand for this trick. In Germany that might be the way to make sure they get the slap. Whereas in the countries where they are dealing with Samsung, perhaps such measures aren't needed
----------
There's also a 3rd reason. Setting precedent. It cuts off other suits a lot faster and not always just for Apple. this is likely why they didn't settle with Psystar but let every inane attempt go to court. They wanted the precedent on record. Look at something like this Qualcomm issue with Samsung. One of Apple's arguments is that Qualcomm paid the licensing to build the chips that Apple is using so Apple doesn't owe additional fees to use them. Samsung is saying no, building and using are two different things and the Qualcomm license only covers building. We'll see if this issue goes to court and how it plays out. but it could have major repercussions beyond even hardware. Look at Lodsys trying to claim that Apple's deal doesn't cover 3rd party developers that use Apple's SDK. That game could be over and against Lodsys if Apple's argument wins.
Definitely.
I like how almost everyone is alright with Apple suing other companies as they consider it justified but if it's the other way around...all Hell breaks loose.
Exactly how long were Steve's therapist. And since when did Doctor/Patient expire when the patient does.
That is true. I just think that the deal should have been mentioned in the article as soon it will be yet another Google vs Apple dispute.
That's not how FRAND works. You don't lose the patents if you try to use them as weapons. You might be saddled with a 3rd party administering them for a while as a kind of probation but you still get the money etc.
You clearly do not understand the issues: There are patents that are essential to a technology and those that are not. They are treated differently under the law. I have not heard of any claim that Apple is using any "Essential" patents to block its competitors. Motorola and Samsung are. This is considered under the law as anti-competitive practices and illegal.
Apple defends its patents. It has not copied a product directly from another competitor like both Google and Samsung have done. And on top of all this Eric Schmidt testifies before Congress claiming that Apple is threatening the industry? That's like the thief calling the victim a bully.
Since when is it ridiculous to defend ones patents?
That should be a no brainer regardless of who is involved.
We don't need to side with Apple, just because we like their products.
What is IMO going on is that over time nobody can get a complete grasp of all the patents involved and research things to search every nook and cranny of patents that were registered over the last 20/30 years.
Some of the patents have over time become the norm/essential for these devices and were initially very vague.
So, to me once a patent besides the known ones is "found" and upheld, whoever uses it should pay accordingly.
What I would like to see is a time limit to file suits, so people don't block innovation with patents and maybe they have to demonstrate they are using it again within a reasonable time span.
Because...
because of the misuse of FRAND patents. If the EU like the US stand for anything is to encourage a free market to flourish. Allowing any limitation of a free market stifles competition and ultimately innovation and the revenue streams that result and warranted by fair non-discriminatory licensing agreements. Truth is, under FRAND Moto has to license the technology or run the risk of a antitrust violation.
The EU has taken the action I am implying before and they are currently investigating samsung over the same type of misuse of FRAND patents I imply.
There are not many ifs here because there has been prior precedent set to warrant the conclusion I am reaching, WHICH INVOLVE ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS.
Besides the basic of explanations points to new evidence being presented by Apple on appeal that challenges the heart of the Moto case...Again FRAND violations.
That's why I think the Moto case will be overturned on appeal. Which is not a "if" it will happen, but a matter of "when it will happen."
because of the misuse of FRAND patents. If the EU like the US stand for anything is to encourage a free market to flourish. Allowing any limitation of a free market stifles competition and ultimately innovation and the revenue streams that result and warranted by fair non-discriminatory licensing agreements. Truth is, under FRAND Moto has to license the technology or run the risk of a antitrust violation.
The EU has taken the action I am implying before and they are currently investigating samsung over the same type of misuse of FRAND patents I imply.
There are not many ifs here because there has been prior precedent set to warrant the conclusion I am reaching, WHICH INVOLVE ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS.
Besides the basic of explanations points to new evidence being presented by Apple on appeal that challenges the heart of the Moto case...Again FRAND violations.
That's why I think the Moto case will be overturned on appeal. Which is not a "if" it will happen, but a matter of "when it will happen."
Putting aside Samsung, what has copied Google directly from another competitor?
And where is the sentence that says that Motorola and Samsung are using FRAND patents illegally?
----------
And where has been stated that Motorola is misusing their patents?
And if Apple is unwilling to pay for the FRAND patents? Apple wants the same low rate other company get with out putting any patents in the pool to gain that right.
That is part of the issue with Nokia is Apple wanted a cheaper rate with out giving anything in return (aka patents) no patents = higher rate plan and simple.
Refusing to pay for patents means you can get an injunction against you FRAND or not.
So while Moto can ban Apple products in Germany, Apple doesn't actually sell anything to ban....
So whats the thing to be proud about. What an accomplishment..
Apple doesn't sell anything in Germany?
www.Apple.com/de ???
Hey! Look! Another lawsuit thread! Well, I guess it HAS been a week since the last one.
You know, the sooner some of you people realize this isn't about a bunch of companies fighting for their lives, but rather them bickering like spoiled children over a Tonka truck in a sandbox, the better off the world will be.
You know, the sooner some of you people realize this isn't about a bunch of companies fighting for their lives, but rather them bickering like spoiled children over a Tonka truck in a sandbox, the better off the world will be.
Agreed. They're becoming patent trolls.
And to all the people citing the Samsung vs Australia case as evidence of Samsung violating Apple patents, what I've never seen mentioned here is that the judge in that case, Annabelle Bennett, is MARRIED to one of the senior counsel members of Wentworth 5 (David Bennett), the barrister firm representing Apple in the case.
David Bennett- http://www.5wentworth.com.au/site/people/detail/11/
Annabelle Bennett talking about her husband- http://www.aim.com.au/DisplayStory.asp?ID=693
Conflict of interest, right? Yet for some reason it has been allowed to proceed, and magically Australia became one of only two countries worldwide to grant an injunction against Samsung, whereas the vast majority of countries have thrown the case out.
I know a guy working at that very firm, even he admits the ruling shouldn't have happened.