Motorola wins German injunction against Apple push services

Posted:
in iCloud edited January 2014


German iCloud users may soon be denied access to one of iCloud's most important features, as Motorola has won a permanent injunction against Apple's data pushing services and devices from the country's Mannheim Regional Court.



In an early Friday court session, Judge Andreas Voss handed down the decision that gives Motorola Mobility the ability to shut down iCloud's push email service in Germany if the company chooses to enforce the ruling, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.



The injunction affects not only iCloud, but its predecessor MobileMe as well as any device that can accept data from Apple's push services.



Motorola first leveled the suit against Apple in April 2011, and because it is the result of a full court proceeding, the judgment is permanent. In contrast, most recent reports regarding Apple's myriad patent disputes have involved preliminary injunctions, which follow "fast-track proceedings" and are sometimes temporary.



According to Mueller, the suit brought against Apple Sales International, Apple's Ireland-based European sales organization, is not Europe-wide and only applies to the German market. He explains that the Irish sales arm is the contractual partner of Apple's German online store, and since sales are made in Germany they are governed by that country's laws.



As a result of the decision, Apple can likely keep iCloud running with push email intact, however the company must disable the service if and when Motorola seeks to enforce the injunction.



During the court hearing, Judge Voss discussed a workaround that involves a device's email client to periodically query Apple's servers for new mail. The solution is less of a workaround than it is a step backward as this is how many email clients worked prior to the rise of push services.



Push email was made popular by the now ailing Blackberry brand and allows users to receive new mail almost instantly. The system works by "pushing" new data to appropriate devices as soon as it is received at the server, and is a vast improvement from manually checking and pulling mail or setting an email client to do the same.





Screenshot of iOS push and fetch email settings. | Source: Apple







Mueller notes that Apple will almost certainly appeal the ruling Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court as the decision is "preliminarily enforceable," which means that Motorola can enforce the injunction if it posts a 100 million euro bond. However, if an appeals court overturns the original ruling, Motorola will need to pay Apple damages that would be determined in a subsequent hearing.



With Google's planned takeover of Motorola Mobility, it is likely that the company will indeed force Apple to disable push email, in which case German iCloud users will soon have to reconfigure their email clients and devices or move to another service.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • kpomkpom Posts: 534member
    Motorola is the one company that seems to be having some actual success against Apple (i.e. in getting injunctions against them, rather than simply defeating Apple's lawsuits). I have also heard on Engadget that Apple has begun pulling older iPhones and 3G iPads from the German market in response to the December ruling. I wonder if they will quickly settle with Motorola before Google takes over completely.



    That said, the German courts are also investigating Samsung's use of patents, so it's entirely possible Apple would want this to continue so that Motorola's use is also investigated.



    Anyway, for what it's worth, Foss claims that Apple did NOT assert a FRAND defense in the iCloud case, but did in the the case that led to the iPhone 3GS and 4 being pulled. Thus it seems that Apple's only permanent solution is to find a way around Motorola's push patents or license the technology. Given how important iCloud is to Apple's strategy, I suspect they will eventually reach a settlement and licensing agreement.
  • daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Oh Well.. You win some, you lose some
  • damensdamens Posts: 35member
    Motorola won't be able to post a $100 billion Euro bond to enforce the injunction - that's more cash than even Apple Inc. have.



    I don't understand the line which says "because it is the result of a full court proceeding, the judgment is permanent. In contrast, most recent reports regarding Apple's myriad patent disputes have involved preliminary injunctions, which follow "fast-track proceedings" and are usually appealed" all of which would suggest this judgement is final and cannot be appealed - however it is then mentioned that Apple may appeal this judgement. Confusing !!
  • bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 1,441member
    So much for the notion that Motorola's patents are all FRAND and that Google over reacted.



    I thought SJ said that Apple uses Microsoft's Push Technology for the iOS. He said that during the keynote when Push was introduced.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DamenS View Post


    Motorola won't be able to post a $100 billion Euro bond to enforce the injunction - that's more cash than even Apple Inc. have.



    You don't need that much cash to get a bond. Typically only about 3-10% of the total amount if you have sufficient assets.



    Still, it's a ridiculous amount.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DamenS View Post


    I don't understand the line which says "because it is the result of a full court proceeding, the judgment is permanent. In contrast, most recent reports regarding Apple's myriad patent disputes have involved preliminary injunctions, which follow "fast-track proceedings" and are usually appealed" all of which would suggest this judgement is final and cannot be appealed - however it is then mentioned that Apple may appeal this judgement. Confusing !!



    Think of it as two different court systems. Both can be appealed, but one is faster than the other:



    Fast-track: Streamlined proceedings to get a fast answer, but which needs to go to a full court later.



    Full court proceeding. Decides the matter for once and for all (unless it's appealed).



    Either decision can be appealed. One might go to the fast-track proceedings if you think you have a slam-dunk case. Or if there's strong market value to a fast decision, even if you might have more hearings down the road.
  • tcaseytcasey Posts: 198member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DamenS View Post


    Motorola won't be able to post a $100 billion Euro bond to enforce the injunction - that's more cash than even Apple Inc. have.



    I don't understand the line which says "because it is the result of a full court proceeding, the judgment is permanent. In contrast, most recent reports regarding Apple's myriad patent disputes have involved preliminary injunctions, which follow "fast-track proceedings" and are usually appealed" all of which would suggest this judgement is final and cannot be appealed - however it is then mentioned that Apple may appeal this judgement. Confusing !!





    it's 100 million bond ,apple asked for 2 billion bond..someone mis-quoted the numbers.
  • fandroidfandroid Posts: 13member
    If I may, I'd like to use Sir Arthur Harris's famous quote:



    The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,274member
    insult removed
  • shompashompa Posts: 338member
    racist comment removed
  • fandroidfandroid Posts: 13member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    First WW2, now this. GERMANS......



    I don't remember anyone here complaining about German justice when Apple (unjustly IMO) won a case against the Samsung Galaxy 10.1.
  • s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    First WW2, now this. GERMANS......



    open mouth, insert foot.



    dummy
  • fecklesstechguyfecklesstechguy Posts: 501member
    Given that this is tied to Apple partners in Europe - there may be some other strategy at work as well. Certainly an appeal by Apple is anticipated, but they may also be looking at a longterm solution that sidesteps the Motorola patent entirely.



    All that being said, I wonder what part of the European market Germany represents for Apple?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fandroid View Post


    I don't remember anyone here complaining about German justice when Apple (unjustly IMO) won a case against the Samsung Galaxy 10.1.



    Because that was your opinion. The problem here involves FRAND patents.
  • screamingfistscreamingfist Posts: 971member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fandroid View Post


    I don't remember anyone here complaining about German justice when Apple (unjustly IMO) won a case against the Samsung Galaxy 10.1.



    well it is an Apple fanatic site (for the most part).

    all of these tactics by the tech companies stink. you live by the sword you die by the sword.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The injunction affects not only iCloud, but its predecessor MobileMe as well as any device that can accept data from Apple's push services.





    This sounds serious. "any device that can accept data from Apple's push services" - Does that include pretty much everything? All the various iPhones? All the iPads? iTouch? All the Macs?





    Is there anything left out besides Apple TV?
  • asciiascii Posts: 5,363member
    The idea of publish/subscribe (pub-sub) vs. polling is well established in computer science, I'm sure there must be prior art on this one. Of course all ideas come from *someone's* head originally, so maybe what I consider established theory really was invented by someone at Moto.
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    The idea of publish/subscribe (pub-sub) vs. polling is well established in computer science, I'm sure there must be prior art on this one. Of course all ideas come from *someone's* head originally, so maybe what I consider established theory really was invented by someone at Moto.



    So are companies like Microsoft licensing this tech from Motorola? When I think "push" I don't think Moto Moto.
  • garamondgaramond Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fandroid View Post


    I don't remember anyone here complaining about German justice when Apple (unjustly IMO) won a case against the Samsung Galaxy 10.1.



    What are you doing here?
  • garamondgaramond Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fandroid View Post


    If I may, I'd like to use Sir Arthur Harris's famous quote:



    The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind



    Welcome to my ignore-list.
  • orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The problem here involves FRAND patents.



    This particular case is not a FRAND patent. It is separate from the other case which involved patents to do with 3G standards and has resulted in Apple pulling devices.
Sign In or Register to comment.