Sidebar Sidebar
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

Okay. I just read through all the thread's pages and thought i'd summarize ;) :

1. Motorola wins legal victory in Germany
2. Apple may not be able to sell products in Germany
3. MR readers say Apple may be in trouble. Others say it's gonna be okay.
4. MR readers are either happy at ruling (karma for Apple's sue-happy behavior) or upset.
5. Apple fanboys come in and say something. Voice of reason starts to die.
6. MR readers either support or disown Apple fanboys
7. Android fanboys come in and gloat
8. Apple fanboys attack Android fanboys and vice versa
9. Voice of reason dies.
10. Ummm...What were we talking about again? :confused:
 
danahn17 said:
Okay. I just read through all the thread's pages and thought i'd summarize ;) :

1. Motorola wins legal victory in Germany
2. Apple may not be able to sell products in Germany
3. MR readers say Apple may be in trouble. Others say it's gonna be okay.
4. MR readers are either happy at ruling (karma for Apple's sue-happy behavior) or upset.
5. Apple fanboys come in and say something. Voice of reason starts to die.
6. MR readers either support or disown Apple fanboys
7. Android fanboys come in and gloat
8. Apple fanboys attack Android fanboys and vice versa
9. Voice of reason dies.
10. Ummm...What were we talking about again? :confused:
Click to expand...

I've noticed it tends opposite of what you're saying here. The rabid fans, Apple and Android alike, post mostly during the first two or three pages. Just pay attention to the downvotings, which hit critical mass around page two, then taper off to practically nil the deeper you get into a thread.

While the intelligent discussions get their seed in the first couple of pages, they usually don't really get indepth until about the fourth page.
 
Clearly you didn't read it carefully miggity,

My point was in the misuse of the FRAND patents. Once a violation is made in a case about the misuse of FRAND, then it is easy to lodge those claims against another company doing the same thing. That is how Moto and Samsung are connected. Further, since Moto is essentially Google, that can be used with google as well.

Allowing the default judgment to take place is simply a stall tactic. Let the judge give a default judgement, and we'll argue the merits later. Seems fairly logical that to do otherwise will limit your hand at presenting new evidence. Therefore, you stall by allowing a default judgement (which has no real teeth to it) and introduce new evidence on appeal, which we all know is going to happen. And when it does, will most certainly overturn the "injunction" and now Moto has a major legal battle with the full arsenal of evidence entered in the case. All the while, you buy yourself time and force your opposition to disclose their defense hand.

Your logic on Bob and Mary is just silly honestly. No one is talking about murder but about the rules companies "play the corporate game." There are still rules that all must follow especially on "essential" technology. Perhaps it's not me that really needs to think it through Miggity. Try agin.;)

miggitymac said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Ok obviously someone is not paying attention.

Google has acquired Motorola and their patents: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-google-chairman-idUSTRE7A70YR20111108

Second, FRAND exists because there were obviously cases there it was applied. But if you must have an example, my dear little Olteros, I submit these cases: Qualcomm v Ericsson, Nokia (NYSE:NOK), Broadcom
(Nasdaq_NMS:BRCM), Panasonic, NEC and Texas Instruments in 2005, Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2008, the one that will stand to benefit Google- Apple vs. MMI (Motorola Mobility Inc, 2011), MEYER vs. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED (2009), and there are countless others. Just because you don't know of any cases does not mean that they do not exist. What logic? Geesh!

Third, the heart of FRAND is to request FAIR, REasonable, and Non-Discrimintory licensing terms Olteros. You can ask for what you want, but is still has to be F, R and ND. There is no way around that.

Fourth, I am not sure why this point is even in here as we are talking about FRAND, but if you ask what Google has copied (totally off topic now), they copied Android from an internal Apple project to name one. I won't waste my time teaching you about other projects, but you can read up on Google and see what else they have taken. But for the sake of argument, I'm not implying they are the only ones, as we all know many companies copy and take the look, feel, and essence of competitor's products. Some just do it more than others and do little innovation.


Oletros said:
1. You can repeat the times you want, the fact is that Google doesn't have bought Motorola yet, they're different companies.

2. Link 2, yap standard procedure for the EU anti trust commission but I have asked about a sentence saying that Samsung or Motorola have misused their FRAND patents. Can you provide one?

3. Yap, you have put the definition of FRAND but can you point me where it says that can't be injunctions or that every licensee has to pay the SAME price for the patents?

4. Still waiting and answer about what Google has directly copied from a competitor.
Click to expand...
 
something3153 said:
You're blubbering about other people not paying attention and you missed the part in the first sentence of your link where it refers to Google's "planned" purchase of Motorola Mobility Holdings?
Click to expand...

We all know google is not going to back out. They are buying them.
Nothing is going to stop approval by the fed as there are no major flags and does not change the landscape of cell phones much at all or any markets Motorola or Google are in as it is not removing competitors from those areas.

So stop with the "planned" crap. It is in the making sure all the 't's are crossed an i's are dotted phase.
 
BLUELION said:
Google has acquired Motorola and their patents: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-google-chairman-idUSTRE7A70YR20111108

Second, FRAND exists because there were obviously cases there it was applied. But if you must have an example, my dear little Olteros, I submit these cases: Qualcomm v Ericsson, Nokia (NYSE:NOK), Broadcom
(Nasdaq_NMS:BRCM), Panasonic, NEC and Texas Instruments in 2005, Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2008, the one that will stand to benefit Google- Apple vs. MMI (Motorola Mobility Inc, 2011), MEYER vs. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED (2009), and there are countless others. Just because you don't know of any cases does not mean that they do not exist. What logic? Geesh!

Third, the heart of FRAND is to request FAIR, REasonable, and Non-Discrimintory licensing terms Olteros. You can ask for what you want, but is still has to be F, R and ND. There is no way around that.

Fourth, I am not sure why this point is even in here as we are talking about FRAND, but if you ask what Google has copied (totally off topic now), they copied Android from an internal Apple project to name one. I won't waste my time teaching you about other projects, but you can read up on Google and see what else they have taken. But for the sake of argument, I'm not implying they are the only ones, as we all know many companies copy and take the look, feel, and essence of competitor's products. Some just do it more than others and do little innovation.
Click to expand...

1. Quoting your own link: "Mobility Holdings after its planned purchase of the handset maker is completed." You can repeat the times you want, Google doesn't have bought yet Motorola, they have planned to but it has to be approved by motorola board, shareholders and regulation agencies so Motorola is STILL an independent company. And even not forgetting that the case started way before Google announced that they will buy Motorola Mobile.

2. I don't know why Apple, Samsung, Motorola or EU agencies spend such a lot of money when they can hire you because you are so sure that they are misusing the FRAND patents. A simple question, do you have any sentence saying that Motorola or Samsung are misusing them or is only your opinion? And no, some cases about FRAND patents are not a fact about what Samsung or Motorola are doing.

3. And what has to do what you're saying when I have asked why do you say that an injunction can be done in a FRAND case or why do you say that every licensee has to pay the same amount?

4. Well, this question was for cire, not for you. But you can tell what super secret internal project are you talking that no one in the world knows about it.

And dear little BLUELION, before being so condescendent you have to be sure that you're right and not so wrong like you're showing.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
We all know google is not going to back out. They are buying them.
Nothing is going to stop approval by the fed as there are no major flags and does not change the landscape of cell phones much at all or any markets Motorola or Google are in as it is not removing competitors from those areas.

So stop with the "planned" crap. It is in the making sure all the 't's are crossed an i's are dotted phase.
Click to expand...

You mean stop bringing facts into the discussion? I'm surprised to see that from you, honestly. Yes, it'll almost definitely happen... but until it does, Google doesn't own MMH. This means the Motorola lawsuit is its own, entirely, which was the context for this ******** about "Motorola is just doing Google's bidding". Motorola is still independent. Stop with your crap.
 
Come on, it has happened.

Olteros,
1) Google has acquired Moto. URL: http://www.google.com/press/motorola/

2) The suing is part of the game. I sue you, you sue me, its all about (a) protecting a patent or (2) to get you to pay some license fee for use of a patent. In the links I provided you in my last post you asked or cases where FRAND patents were being misused and I provided them. Not sure why we go around and around on this. The fact is that FRAND patents do get abused and misused, otherwise why need a FRAND law in the first place?

3) I never said "pay the same amount." What I said was that it be FR and ND.

4) The question was written as directed as me so I responded. Seeing as it wasn't, mute point I guess. In either case, the point I shared then was highlighted in today's article about Android: http://www.appleinsider.com/article...sees_seeks_to_strengthen_asian_alliances.html

I responded in a condescending tone in like manner. Condescending tone begets condescending tone. In either case, the tone is irrelevant as what I shared was supported as truth. So I guess we are at an impasse.
 
BLUELION said:
Olteros,
1) Google has acquired Moto. URL: http://www.google.com/press/motorola/
Click to expand...

Actually, i think Olteros is correct.

http://investor.google.com/releases/2011/0815.html (which is linked from your link):

"The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including the receipt of regulatory approvals in the US, the European Union and other jurisdictions, and the approval of Motorola Mobility’s stockholders. The transaction is expected to close by the end of 2011 or early 2012."

oh, and from CNN article Nov 9:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/tech/mobile/google-motorola-android/

"The $12.5 billion acquisition still has not cleared federal oversight, and so Google has not been talking publicly much about its plans. A spokesman declined to comment on the matter last week."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back