Judge affirms vital Apple touchscreen patent in case against Motorola

2456789

Comments

  • dmarcootdmarcoot Posts: 191member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.



    Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.







    You obviously own no AAPL stock. You obviously have no idea how much revenue and profit Apple creates off the iPhone. Things of value are worth protecting. That is not childish.
  • f1ferrarif1ferrari Posts: 223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    If a frog had a glass ass he'd break it periodically.



    Point taken. The people who bitch about Apple's litigations are probably the least likely to have intellectual property of their own to protect.
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 25,342member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Not only does it look like the patent wars are going against them, but their revenues from Android are not sufficient to justify the investment. They make much more money off iOS than off Android, so they'd probably be better off if they had never bothered with Android.



    Perhaps they should abandon Android and let the Open Source community take over. Cut bait while you can, Google!
  • charlesscharless Posts: 301member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    So, since there's a lot of legal action taking place, Apple should drop all of their lawsuits? Because, that's exactly what certain people are implying. If there are a lot of rapes taking place and your wife or girlfriend gets raped, should you not report it?



    Wow. That's quite likely the most tasteless analogy I've ever seen on the Internet, and that's saying something.
  • cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,151member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post


    Wow. That's quite likely the most tasteless analogy I've ever seen on the Internet, and that's saying something.



    Perhaps a better analogy would be made to gang banging, which does not make rape legal by more people being involved.
  • tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Thanks for trolling.



    How about learning a little about patent law and the requirement that companies defend their patents or lose them, then come back (tail between legs) with an informed comment for everyone.







    As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.



    With that said, I don't see the point of inventing something, patenting it, and than not benefitting in some way from it. Unlike companies like Microsoft that have little problem licensing their patents, Apple wants to distinguish itself by design. So it doesn't want others to use its ideas.



    This particular patent really is a useful one.
  • tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post


    You obviously own no AAPL stock. You obviously have no idea how much revenue and profit Apple creates off the iPhone. Things of value are worth protecting. That is not childish.



    I side with Apple here, but it certainly isn't because I own Apple stock. It is because Apple deserves to profit for a limited time for something it invented. Holding stock in a company should never be a reason why you agree or disagree with a company's actions.
  • quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,615member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.



    Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.



    Apple loses nothing.



    Moto, however, is just bleeding more money when they can't afford to. Never mind that their business is a complete mess.
  • blitz1blitz1 Posts: 404member
    Quite bizarre how this community reacts to patents: Apple patent? Apple should go all the way! Non-Apple patent? It's Frand or it's invalid or it's.... whatever. The Non-Apples should just be still and certainly not defend their efforts in inventing anything (because, anyway, they're not capable of inventing anything)
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,973member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.



    Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.



    1. The legal action was initiated by Motorola.



    2. The American judicial system is so slow that this is still Apple's original defensive case, i.e. there is nothing new here.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.



    With that said, I don't see the point of inventing something, patenting it, and than not benefitting in some way from it. Unlike companies like Microsoft that have little problem licensing their patents, Apple wants to distinguish itself by design. So it doesn't want others to use its ideas.



    This particular patent really is a useful one.



    SpamSandwich will be in for a shock when you charge him a 1 hour consultation fee for that post.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    1. The legal action was initiated by Motorola.



    2. The American judicial system is so slow that this is still Apple's original defensive case, i.e. there is nothing new here.



    Yeah, but none of that paints Apple in a bad light.
  • gtrgtr Posts: 3,208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


    Quite bizarre how this community reacts to patents: Apple patent? Apple should go all the way! Non-Apple patent? It's Frand or it's invalid or it's.... whatever. The Non-Apples should just be still and certainly not defend their efforts in inventing anything (because, anyway, they're not capable of inventing anything)



    Ah, c'mon!



    There must be something loveable about us.



    I mean, you keep coming back, right?
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    Ah, c'mon!



    There must be something loveable about us.



    I mean, you keep coming back, right?



    Those posts are so ridiculous. If Apple has offered this patent for FRAND to others but then denying Moto from licensing it or wanting unfair and unreasonable compensation then every reasonable poster on this site would say Apple is in the wrong. However, so far the FRAND issues seem to prevent Apple from fairly competing because they've been so successful in winning.
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,973member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


    Quite bizarre how this community reacts to patents: Apple patent? Apple should go all the way! Non-Apple patent? It's Frand or it's invalid or it's.... whatever. The Non-Apples should just be still and certainly not defend their efforts in inventing anything (because, anyway, they're not capable of inventing anything)



    That's just reality, Motorola are trying to become the ultimate patent trolls, their "reasonable" demand from Microsoft over H.264 patents amounts to $4 billion a year, Microsoft currently pays MPEG-LA $6.5 million a year if it wasn't capped it would be $60 million a year to license all the other essential patents in the pool.



    Motorola is a money grubbing extortionist.
  • mightymikemightymike Posts: 49member
    Looks like the geniuses at Google painted themselves into a corner. Buying Moto now is a big $12.5 billion dollar headache. Not buying Moto is an even bigger headache when Apple buys it for half.



    Google reminds me of Shallow Hal.
  • blitz1blitz1 Posts: 404member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    That's just reality, Motorola are trying to become the ultimate patent trolls, their "reasonable" demand from Microsoft over H.264 patents amounts to $4 billion a year, Microsoft currently pays MPEG-LA $6.5 million a year if it wasn't capped it would be $60 million a year to license all the other essential patents in the pool.



    Motorola is a money grubbing extortionist.



    Thanks for making my point.



    Maybe Motorola shouldn't license their patents and keep their superior technology to themselves (I know, Non-Apples don't have superior technology).
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


    Thanks for making my point.



    He countered your point.



    Quote:

    Maybe Motorola shouldn't license their patents and keep their superior technology to themselves



    They have the right not license any patents that they haven't already made agreements to license. If they feel they can use their tech in-house, instead of getting compensated from 3rd-parties, to better their position financially then they should pursue that.



    Quote:

    (I know, Non-Apples don't have superior technology).



    Except for all the tech they license or buy from other others. No Apple product is built in a bubble and your foolish hyperbole isn't helping any argument you may have.



    Pro tip: Hyperbole can be effective when you try to make it funny but when you state something that axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish.
  • sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,712member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    [...] Even as the lawsuits between the two companies continue, Google is making plans to finalize its $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola. [...]



    Maybe it's not too late for Google to cancel the Motorola Mobility deal. What a lemon.

    RIM might be a better value proposition at this point. Its market cap is $7.6 billion and falling.

    And there wouldn't be any bidding war.



    After all, Motorola Mobility publicly threatened to sue Google for patent infringement.

    Google panicked, slammed a deal together in two weeks, and ended up paying a 63% premium

    over MMI's fair market value at the time. Evidently two weeks wasn't enough time for due diligence.



    Extortion? Maybe that's too harsh a word.
  • drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Vital patents? I think not. The '949 patent is a 400 page behemoth, there's bound to be some original ideas in it. However, as with the "data tapping", "overscroll bounceback", "slide-to-unlock image" and "photo gallery page-turning" methods that Mueller reminded about, there will be workarounds. I for one care not one bit whether my page will scroll straight up due to heuristics, or follow precisely my fingers motion when heuristics is turned off.



    Lawyers making money, that's what this bickering is in the end. Patents or not, Android is here to stay.
  • milkmagemilkmage Posts: 151member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.



    Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.



    " I hope the judge throws this out of court"

    FTA:

    "Judge Richard Posner has issued an order upholding some of"



    He just issued a ruling.. the EXACT opposite of throwing it out of court. The judge found merit in Apple's argument. A case gets thrown out when neither side's arguments hold merit.



    "no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride"

    this is a patent suit - there are VERY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY AT STAKE.



    this is what can happen when a patent holder is on the winning side:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1120318.html



    Apple won a temporary injunction (that was eventually overturned) which means Samsung was not allowed to sell their tablet in Australia while the injunction was in effect.



    doesn't take a genius to figure out what could happen to other touchscreen phones if Apple wins this.
Sign In or Register to comment.