Motorola forces Apple to halt iCloud push services in Germany

Posted:
in iCloud edited January 2014


Apple announced on Friday that it had shut down iCloud push services in Germany, explaining that the move was the direct result of a successful Motorola bid for an injunction against the cloud syncing service over data pushing technology.



The Cupertino, Calif., company posted the news () in the support section of its German website, and gave a brief summary of the injunction as well as suggestions for temporary solutions that iCloud users can follow while the company appeals the decision, reports German language site iPhone-ticker.de.



Apple lists the service outage as a () on its support document page in an apparent attempt to direct affected iCloud users to the article if they query the site about the push email stoppage.



Besides push mail, the halting of Apple's push services will stop the syncing of calendars and contacts for MobileMe until users change certain device settings. iCloud users will not be affected.



A rough translation of the summary describes the recent court case in which Motorola Mobility successfully leveraged a data pushing technology patent against Apple in Mannheim.



The document notes that while iCloud and existing MobileMe users within the borders of Germany can't receive push email at this time, all received messages can still be accessed through either the iCloud website or by reconfiguring an iOS device's settings. All non-mobile products, such as iMacs and MacBook Pros, are not affected as they do not use wireless data pushing services.



Once a user is outside of Germany, they must manually reactivate push mail in the device settings of their iOS device.





"The push e-mail service for users of iCloud and MobileMe mail is currently unavailable within the borders of Germany" | Source: Apple.com







Motorola first filed the complaint at the Mannheim Regional Court in April, 2011, an claimed that Apple's push mail service infringed on an existing patent. Judge Andreas Voss handed down the decision in early February, giving Motorola the ability to enforce an injunction against any Apple product that serves as a data pushing system.



Because the ruling was "preliminarily enforceable," it can be inferred that Motorola posted the required 100 million euro bond to enforce the injunction. If Apple's expected appeal at the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court finds that the original ruling was incorrect, the RAZR maker will be forced to pay damages in a subsequent hearing.



Push email allows users to receive new mail almost instantly by "pushing" new data to a user's device as soon as it is received at the server. The system is the successor of previous so-called "pull" mail services that require an email client to check the server for new messages as set intervals.



Apple's solution to the push service stoppage is as follows (translated from German support site):



For iCloud Mail:



On the Home screen, go to "Settings" > "Mail, Contacts, Calendars."

Tap "Fetch New Data."

Select a scheduled time to fetch new data.

The "Push" setting must be turned on in order to ensure the continued push for contacts and calendar service.



MobileMe Mail:



On the Home screen, go to "Settings" > "Mail, Contacts, Calendars."

Tap "Fetch New Data".

Select a scheduled time to fetch new data.

Tap "Advanced."

Select a MobileMe account from the accounts list.

Tap "Fetch" under "Select Schedule."

Tap "Advanced" to return to the previous screen.

Repeat steps 5-7 for other MobileMe accounts on your device.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«134

Comments

  • asciiascii Posts: 5,363member
    No cloud syncing for der Germans ... physically plug your iDevices in to your PC/Mac for the same effect.
  • netimoonnetimoon Posts: 41member
    For God's sake.......



    If push is unavailable, does calendar & address book auto syncing not work?
  • mauszmausz Posts: 242member
    karma... apple was not the first to sue, but instead of damages they were the ones asking for sales injunctions etc. I would have gone the microsoft route and just take royalties (works two ways, so in the end the effect may be neutral)... but hey, I'm also not the one running a multi-billion company, so my thoughts seem to be irrelevant in this matter
  • applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,305member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


    karma... apple was not the first to sue, but instead of damages they were the ones asking for sales injunctions etc. I would have gone the microsoft route and just take royalties (works two ways, so in the end the effect may be neutral)... but hey, I'm also not the one running a multi-billion company, so my thoughts seem to be irrelevant in this matter



    Think about it,,, This will have a minimal impact on Apple. People will still buy iOS products.

    Allowing a bunch of copycats around the world to steal valuable iPhone technologies for peanuts royalties would be worse. That would also set precedence for them to keep copying the iOS devices and there would be more lawsuits anyway because copycats would violate the agreements. It is better to make all copying off limits.



    This will likely be temporary until an appeal.



    I still side with Apple to bury Googorola in the long term.
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Netimoon View Post


    For God's sake.......



    If push is unavailable, does calendar & address book auto syncing not work?



    Read the article.



    Besides push mail, the halting of Apple's push services will stop the syncing of calendars and contacts for MobileMe users, though iCloud users will not be affected.
  • moxommoxom Posts: 325member
    Meine iCloud ist Kaput!



    Sorry that was lame....
  • blitz1blitz1 Posts: 359member
    Motorola is absolutely right to go after copycats.

    Besides, iCloud absolutely sucks.
  • mauszmausz Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post


    Think about it,,, This will have a minimal impact on Apple. People will still buy iOS products.

    Allowing a bunch of copycats around the world to steal valuable iPhone technologies for peanuts royalties would be worse.



    valuable iPhone technology like slide-to-unlock, the rectangle with rounded corners or the bounce at the end of a scrolling list ? Because those are the actual valuable technologies Apple is using to get other products banned.



    Apple should just build on its real value, the complete package, the quality, the eco-system.
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,960member
    I thought Apple was using Exchange active sync, licensed from Microsoft who incidentally are suing Motorola over the same thing.



    So what happens if you set your MobileMe/iCloud account as Exchange?
  • applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,305member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


    valuable iPhone technology like slide-to-unlock, the rectangle with rounded corners or the bounce at the end of a scrolling list ? Because those are the actual valuable technologies Apple is using to get other products banned.



    Apple should just build on its real value, the complete package, the quality, the eco-system.



    You would be surprised how far small aesthetic simplicities such as these can take you in differentiating your product and winning sales.



    Make no mistake. The simple slide to unlock is huge. It is very well known since it's introduction by Apple and it will be unique to the iPhone. It is also used in other areas of iOS in a consistent way. Moreover, it is probably much better in terms of resource consumption than other methods in use.
  • realitycheck69realitycheck69 Posts: 83member
    Apple should have learned from Microsoft that licensing is the way to go. Nobody but the lawyers win in these situations.
  • palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,133member
    Wireless push.. Can it even be patented?

    Sounds too generic of you ask me..
  • mauszmausz Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post


    You would be surprised how far small aesthetic simplicities such as these can take you in differentiating your product and winning sales.



    Make no mistake. The simple slide to unlock is huge. It is very well known since it's introduction by Apple and it will be unique to the iPhone. It is also used in other areas of iOS in a consistent way. Moreover, it is probably much better in terms of resource consumption than other methods in use.



    Going off-topic in 3.2.1...



    Slide to unlock had been available beforce the iphone, both physical (famous garden fence) as well as physical buttons on the device itself (had it on my walkman in the early 90's). The current implementation is a 1:1 virtualization of such a locking mechanism.



    Even the touchscreen method of slide to unlock has been implemented before see NeoNode N1



    But would this be a differentatior for you to buy a phone ? For me no way, the ecosystem and the global user-interaction would be, and they are not significantly affected by the given samples
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,575member
    Sad to say but I'm glad I don't live in Germany. My life practically depends on Push.
  • fotoformatfotoformat Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    Apple should have learned from Microsoft that licensing is the way to go. Nobody but the lawyers win in these situations.



    I suppose Apple have an iLegal department to deal with illegal uses of...
  • timmydaxtimmydax Posts: 284member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


    Going off-topic in 3.2.1...



    Slide to unlock had been available beforce the iphone, both physical (famous garden fence) as well as physical buttons on the device itself (had it on my walkman in the early 90's). The current implementation is a 1:1 virtualization of such a locking mechanism.



    Even the touchscreen method of slide to unlock has been implemented before see NeoNode N1



    But would this be a differentatior for you to buy a phone ? For me no way, the ecosystem and the global user-interaction would be, and they are not significantly affected by the given samples



    Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their

    "slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.



    1) It is a gesture, ie. it has to be done as a swipe in one go, like go back from the now playing screen in the music app, not like changing home screen pages (1:1)

    2) On the NNN1, it is a generic OS-wide gesture for "Yes", the opposite is "No", and you can just press the "Yes" or "No" keys on the device instead. Apple has nothing remotely like this.

    3) Whilst not sliding your finger all the way across the NNN1 will not unlock, this is a deliberate limitation of its weird 9x9 grid of IR sensors (similar to the Surface bathtub), not because it has an "unlocking zone" like apple's patent (and let's not forget, implementation)

    4) The NNN1 provides no visualisation of any movement, just a very feature-phone-esque padlock screen. It may seem superficially similar, but is much more similar to "Press Unlock then *" than it is to "Slide to Unlock".



    </RANT>
  • irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,420member
    Sooo. Are motorola going after microsoft and activesync next? or do they already license this patent 'for paging devices'?



    I suppose the current workaround is to switch to fetch?
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post


    Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their

    "slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.



    When Apple tried to assert that patent against Samsung in the Netherlands, the Dutch Court disagreed with you. They found the NeoNode to be valid prior art and offered the court's opinion that Apple's patent was very likely invalid.



    "(The) Dutch court... decision also rendered the European version (EP20080903) of Apple's Slide-to-Unlock patent as obvious, trivial, "not inventive", and likely invalid.



    Samsung presented the Neonode N1m in the Dutch court as "prior art", which likely led the court to refuse considering the patent as valid. The judge noted that the only difference between the Neonode N1m and Apple's Slide- to-Unlock patent is the unlock image that accompanies the unlock gesture. But such unlock image was seen as "obvious", and therefore not worthy of a patent at all."
  • davidwdavidw Posts: 839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    When Apple tried to assert that patent against Samsung in the Netherlands, the Dutch Court disagreed with you. They found the NeoNode to be valid prior art and offered the court's opinion that Apple's patent was very likely invalid.



    "(The) Dutch court... decision also rendered the European version (EP20080903) of Apple's Slide-to-Unlock patent as obvious, trivial, "not inventive", and likely invalid.



    Samsung presented the Neonode N1m in the Dutch court as "prior art", which likely led the court to refuse considering the patent as valid. The judge noted that the only difference between the Neonode N1m and Apple's Slide- to-Unlock patent is the unlock image that accompanies the unlock gesture. But such unlock image was seen as "obvious", and therefore not worthy of a patent at all."



    But that ruling came before Apple was actually awarded the patent for "slide to unlock". Apple was awarded the patent in Oct.2011. The Dutch ruling (concerning the "slide to unlock") in favor of Samsung, came in Aug. 2011. So obviously the Dutch was wrong. The patent was not invalidated by any prior art. Not yet at least.
  • drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post


    Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their

    "slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.

    ...



    Would the unimaginative please stop bringing up how the Neonode was not exactly the same as the iPhone. Neonode's slide-to-unlock achieves the exact same effect as iPhone's with exactly the same gesture, on-screen animation notwithstanding. If Apple's implementation would not work without the guiding image addition (like, if you couldn't unlock an iPhone without looking at it), then I'd accept that the addition is essential.



    And why would you call the Neonode a POS? I'd say it was a pioneering device that, for the first time, combined a touchscreen phone, a music player, an Internet communication device, a camera, and a PIM. Mind you, this was several years before the iPhone, when technology simply did not allow for many of the features that we saw later.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...8Crxf2s#t=130s
Sign In or Register to comment.