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
A default judgement is still a judgement against Apple and the injunction is just the remedy. Any judgement sets a precedent which other courts will consider as fact, not as something that can be argued or disproved. So maybe the injunction will not have much "bite" right now, but the judgement itself is a blow to Apple, and they'll likely appeal.
I'm not really sure how you're connecting the battle with Samsung with this judgement for Moto. For all we know they could involve completely different patents, and be therefore unrelated to the other. Unless the cases involve the exact same patents and similar arguments, there really would be no relevant evidence from the Samsung battle that could be used in an appeal against Moto.
That'd be like saying "well this guy was found guilty of killing Mary, therefore he'll be found guilty of killing Bob too". Unless there's something to connect the two different incidents, evidence from one court proceeding would be irrelevant to the other court proceeding.
Given that Moto and Samsung own different patents, I'd seriously doubt that the Moto battle with Apple and the Samsung battle with Apple involve the same patents.
Think it through dude.
Not at all.
Some of you are lawyers, and some of you are relatively sophisticated on patent issues. But I haven't seen much sophistication with regard to international trade matters--and that is in play here.
I have not dealt with this specific issue under German law, but I have in the US and other countries--and each case involved various patent, trademark, and trade dress claims.
When a multinational conglomerate is sued, the issues of control and ownership of the various entities, and the relationship and respective rolls in the chain of distribution, are usually murky. Therefore, plaintiffs sue all the subsidiaries that might reasonably be expected to play a relevant roll, just to keep the bases covered. Usually, steps are taken to remove the unnecessary parties, but often they are allowed to default because an adverse outcome will not affect them.
While it's possible Apple's legal team blew it, that's very doubtful. My hunch is that the ownership and control of the German sub, and it's roll in the chain of distribution, are structured under German law so that this ruling will have no effect whatsoever on the sales of Apple products. Not knowing German law, I won't speculate here as to how they accomplished this. However, having done this in the US many times, in many venues, and having set up foreign subs--and even sister companies overseas, I have good hunches.
Some of you are raising relevant questions--particularly with the German website apparently registered to Apple, Inc. But most of you are way off base and overly simplistic, and should just listen more.
One thing I haven't read here, is a rundown of the elements German law would require for sales by Apple Germany to be deemed as shipped from Apple, Inc. That is the starting point, so let's hear it! Then, we can see whether Apple, Inc. is in trouble--making the unlikely assumption that anyone here is privy to all the necessary details. And to 98 percent of you, let me just say it's usually far more intricate than what meets the eye.
Just a clarification on FRAND terms via an analogy:
A new car costs 100.000$.
If you buy it without turning in your old car, that's what you pay.
But if you turn in your old car (valued at say 20.000$), you pay 80.000$.
That is FRAND. However, what what you can't do is to charge 150.000$ if the customer is a 20-30 year old white male. That's discrimination.
What Apple has done, however, is to just walk in and take the car.
See, this is a fine example of the noise that would be good to filter.
Wrong. First of all, default judgments are not afforded stare decisis. But even if Apple, Inc. lost on the merits, which it did not, it would be res judicata to that case, on those narrow issues, those specific patents, under those German laws, with those precise parties, ONLY.
Sure, it could encourage Moto or others to pursue more cases in other jurisdictions, but it would have no binding effect whatsoever in other cases.
Remember, the merits are being fought by Apple Germany. if Apple Germany prevails, the injunction against Apple, Inc. will be lifted even if it is deemed responsible for sales in Germany.
From the MR Article itself:
Courts are not so blind to not recognize parent/subsidiary corporation relationships. If Apple Inc. is found to have "control" of the German subsidiary, then the courts will treat the subsidiary and the parent as one and the same.
Last edited:
Definition fail...
"Patent troll is a pejorative but questioned term used for a person or company who is a non-practicing inventor, and buys and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered by the target or observers as unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention."
Nice try buuuudy
"Patent troll is a pejorative but questioned term used for a person or company who is a non-practicing inventor, and buys and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered by the target or observers as unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention."
Nice try buuuudy
Business in 2011... it's all lawyers and patents. At least for the technology industry. What a tangled web those corporate lawyers weave...
Actually, default judgments are handled differently in different jurisdictions. For example, in the US, some states allow clerks of the court to enter in a default judgment. In other states, a judge will hear the plaintiff's case and may require some evidence to be presented.
I agree that patent laws also differ from jurisdiction. What I meant by the term "precedent" was specific to the Moto case in Germany though. If Moto decides to go to court to enforce the injunction, the judgement that granted the injunction will itself be "precedent" and un-arguable unless Apple appeals the decision.
EDIT: My comments following the ones you quoted should have clarified what I meant. Too bad you didn't read further.
Last edited:
Amen. Notice how any comment that takes Apple's side in the Android vs. Apple battle is immediately down ranked to -5? Apparently MacRumors is the new favorite hangout of the Android fanatics.
lol.
If I post anything against apple I will get down voted to oblivion. It does not matter if it's true or not. Just that fact alone is reason enough to consider my words... ummm... blasphemy!
So are you looking to create a Jobs type eco system where all special thinkers can gather and talk magic and fantasy or you want a site that at least tries to look mature?
And did you give it a thought that maybe some people are down voting because they can finally see past Jobs distorted reality field? You don't like people that think different than you and it's all there is to it.
Start giving examples with merit/proof or just go and whine somewhere else.
FWIW, Moderators have zero control over what you are proposing. Arn, and other Gods, make such decisions, we simply enforce what rules they implement, and, or, make suggestions like you have.
Use the Site and Forum feedback area to make such suggestions so they get proper attention.
Anyone who wishes for mob rule is no better than the mob itself. Mobs are by their very nature beholden to raw instinct. They are the antithesis of logic and reason and thus are incapable of determining actual guilt or establishing true justice. You might as well admit you long for anarchy.
You couldn't identify genius if it slapped you in the face.
I was able to come to that conclusion based on the absurdity of your comment.
It's absolutely ridiculous the way that every time the word "patent" comes up in a MacRumors article all the trolls show up to praise the copycat patent infringers and decry Apple for actually filing suits against them. The whole patent system exists to allow for the protection of IP, but when a company actually decides to utilize that system millions of baseless claims get made about how they themselves MUST be infringing on others' patents by the sheer fact that they produced a product.
Apple is a GIANT company. While it is healthy to question whether they made mistakes, it is absurd to believe that they didn't at least attempt to keep all their metaphorical ducks in a row. Not to mention that infringing on someone else's IP does not suddenly give everyone else the right to infringe on yours. The ultimate outcome of these cases is that EVERYONE will eventually have to pay up, but companies like Motorola and Samsung don't want that to happen. They want to get more than their fair share of compensation while hiding all of their own misdeeds thereby turning rather mundane patent litigation into a very corrupt advantage.
Apple is a GIANT company. While it is healthy to question whether they made mistakes, it is absurd to believe that they didn't at least attempt to keep all their metaphorical ducks in a row. Not to mention that infringing on someone else's IP does not suddenly give everyone else the right to infringe on yours. The ultimate outcome of these cases is that EVERYONE will eventually have to pay up, but companies like Motorola and Samsung don't want that to happen. They want to get more than their fair share of compensation while hiding all of their own misdeeds thereby turning rather mundane patent litigation into a very corrupt advantage.
Yap, this is another example of noise that would be good to filter
I actually LOLed. Maybe it's just the ****** weekend I had, but this really hit the spot. Don't know why it's at a negative rating, friggin' hilarious!
I corrected your statement to reflect a more factual, less fanatical response.
Apple doesn't have some higher moral code than Samsung and Motorola. Steve Jobs bragged about not being shamed to steal the good ideas of others. Implying that Apple is a more ethical company when arguing patents is one of the most idiotic things you can do.
Way too simplistic and overly broad. You're kinda right, but pretty wrong. Been there, done that, nearly a hundred times, and won every time. I was the in-house general counsel for a multinational for many years, in addition to private practice. I've seen this from all sides.
It's in the details, which you and I don't have in this case. I have a hunch Apple's details were structured just right--and for many reasons.
Maybe that has something to do with the pro-Apple posts assuming that the courts are wrong and Moto is abusing FRAND patents with absolutely zero evidence to support it? Just saying, that might cause some reasonable people to vote down pro-Apple posts.