Motorola wins major injunction against Apple's iPhone, iPad in Germany - Page 2

Originally Posted by umrk_lab

I believe any company intending to design such a complex product is faced with potential infringement of hundreds of patents. Some of thse can be clearly identified and resolved, but others would require years of negotiations, which obviously Apple could not afford. having said that, it is also true that in many cases (Apple trademark, etc ...) it is Apple's (or better Steve's) strategy to move along, and then negotiate. this is not necessarily counterproductive, since anyway you have to negotiate at some points, as these matters are often resolved after negotiation, apart from legal system/dispute. My guess is that, as it is done in any company, they have eavaluated the pros and cons of each strategy. Only future will tell whether they were right or not (but the public will not be able to tell,because in case of negotiations the terms are never made public).

Originally Posted by sip

Germans like their tech and can afford it -- I have no idea how many iPhones have been sold in Germany but they've always been keen on Apple products, and produced lots of software pre-OSX.

They may well take out their frustrations on Googarola.

Originally Posted by slapppy

It's funny how these iHaters are so giddy when Apple loses. The fact that their own favorite toys are emulating Apple in almost every way alludes their little pea sized brains. Without Apple you guys will still be using a stylus to work your "smartphone". Without Apple, pushing the boundaries of hardware and software, you pea brains would still be rocking with your chicklet keyboards.

Originally Posted by umrk_lab

I believe any company intending to design such a complex product is faced with potential infringement of hundreds of patents. Some of thse can be clearly identified and resolved, but others would require years of negotiations, which obviously Apple could not afford.

Originally Posted by DavidW

The question is how much are others paying Motorola for a license to use the patents in question. If the patents are essential for the working of a mobile device then Motorola can not force Apple to pay more than what they charge others for the same license. So is Motorola getting 2.5-3.5% per device from the others?

Originally Posted by ConradJoe

They are NOT newbies.

Apple has more lawyers than most companies have employees. The suits were advised of every detail and nuance. The Apple suits gambled that they could get away with stealing, and that stealing stuff would make them richer.

Apple knew EXACTLY what it was doing. Apple knew EXACTLY what the stakes were. Apple tried to sleaze its way into profits, but has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar.


All the suits who decided to steal as a business strategy should be fired. Every last one of them.

Originally Posted by lfmorrison

If the initial premise was correct -- if Apple always had the intention to attempt to invalidate Motorola's patent -- then the course of events that has followed would have been exactly what Apple wanted to happen, according to the only strategy that could have them led them to obtaining standing to attempt to have the patent invalidated.

Originally Posted by KPOM

Apple approached Motorola years ago about licensing the patents on FRAND terms. Motorola Mobility decided to play hardball.

Apple is more than happy to settle out of court. Nokia is a good example. Nokia has far more patents than Motorola Mobility and has done more to develop mobile communications standards than anyone else. They had a brief war of words, but then later came to an amicable settlement.

Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc

Oh Baby! My biz here in Germany since this morning has just rocketed stratospheric!

Thank you Motorola, for getting the "fence-sitters" to commit... because fact is, nobody but nobody wants the alternative to Apple iOS products... but there were more than a few of my clients that thought they could wait until prices went down after the holidays, or the new iPad 3 comes out.

Biggest complaint is that I wont have a vacation until end of February... bit I can deal with it

PS. Anyone think it's bad of me for not telling my clients that it's probably not enforceable until next year... and even then it will probably be a monetary settlement?

Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc

Why? It "still" looks like a decent strategy... because even the "suits" didn't expect the iPhone to do as well as it did... even SJ was shocked.


So... why pay up front when everybody and his dog thought Apple was going to fail anyway.... and even the true believers such as SJ and Friends, were floored at the iPhone's success.

With 100 BILLION in the bank by the end of this quarter, whats even 100 Million... if it even comes to that. I'm to busy too do the math, but I bet Apple makes that only in interest in a very short period of time.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Apple is happy to license the patents. If so it never would have come to this. Depending on the facts as written so far, Apple declined to take a license if they were not going to be allowed to challenge the validity of the patent. It would have been a very poor business decision on their part if they allowed the granting of a license to an entity who has stated they're doing so under duress and intend to sue at some future time, not convinced it's a valid patent to begin with.

Originally Posted by ConradJoe

Germans may like their tech, but they also like morality.

Many Germans will never buy another Apple product, just as many AI posters will never buy another Samsung product (except for the multiple Samsung products they buy which are encased in plastic and say "Apple" on the outside).

Originally Posted by Scaramanga89

Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.

Apple would rather infringe knowingly then litigate than pay terms, than seems apparent, and this is not the first example. Google are doing the same, both are on morally shifty ground, but the rules apply to all parties following this model. So the next time someone on here starts shouting the odds against Samsung, remember this ruling. I'm not taking sides, just clarifying my argument.

Originally Posted by ConradJoe

Apple thinks that it is cheaper to ask a judge for forgiveness than to ask an IP owner for permission.

Too bad Apple decided upon a "don't license, litigate instead" strategy. I hope that they have learned something from all this. Just because they have more money than other companies, they are NOT invincible, and while the wheels of justice turn slowly, the miscreant lawbreaker will always have his day of reckoning.

Too bad the day of reckoning involves the biggest market in all of Europe, and too bad the day is during the busiest selling time of the entire year. But criminals who steal other people's stuff can't choose when they get punished.

Apple fans need to hang their heads in shame.

Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc

Why? It "still" looks like a decent strategy... because even the "suits" didn't expect the iPhone to do as well as it did... even SJ was shocked.

So... why pay up front when everybody and his dog thought Apple was going to fail anyway.... and even the true believers such as SJ and Friends, were floored at the iPhone's success.

With 100 BILLION in the bank by the end of this quarter, whats even 100 Million... if it even comes to that. I'm to busy too do the math, but I bet Apple makes that only in interest in a very short period of time.

Too bad you're so full of hate, that you can't reason well. You'd never make a good manager or officer, let alone a techblog poster.

Originally Posted by Scaramanga89

Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.

Apple would rather infringe knowingly then litigate than pay terms, than seems apparent, and this is not the first example. Google are doing the same, both are on morally shifty ground, but the rules apply to all parties following this model. So the next time someone on here starts shouting the odds against Samsung, remember this ruling. I'm not taking sides, just clarifying my argument.

Originally Posted by ConradJoe

I think that a few people will gloat over Apple's ill-gotten? gains. The rest of us will not.

Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy

...at least don't bother linking to their comments, because that undermines the purpose of ignoring them.

ConradJoe is unaware of or doesn't care about actual facts in this case, and has an anti-Apple bias. This commenter continues on here in spite of misbehavior because they generate thread posts in response to their tirades. The moderators seem to prefer to allow continuance of the behavior - so there you are. In any case this suit predates the "look and fell" suits that CJ is complaining about, so the contention that this is "pay-back" of course is stupid and silly - but what else is expected?

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Apple tried to challenge the bias direction of Motorola's attempt to extort money from Apple separate from all the other buyers of the chips in question - its a cutthroat move in a cutthroat business - and one of the reasons that Apple has maintained such a large "warchest" as the outcomes of these litigations is not cut and dried. Courts normally do not have a high degree of technical expertise and thus must try on the merits as presented. Unfortunately Motorola was very canny in using the German courts to try the case as they are known to not be FRAND-friendly, and thus gave Moto a chance to win. That being said, if the higher courts on appeal look at Moto's bias activity, they may decide against them, as the EU is reviewing FRAND policy to try and tighten things up on companies that rely on FRAND standard participation to support adoption of their technologies but then turn around and try to use that same position to extort money from sucess competitors in the marketplace.

Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy

...at least don't bother linking to their comments, because that undermines the purpose of ignoring them.

ConradJoe is unaware of or doesn't care about actual facts in this case, and has an anti-Apple bias. This commenter continues on here in spite of misbehavior because they generate thread posts in response to their tirades. The moderators seem to prefer to allow continuance of the behavior - so there you are. In any case this suit predates the "look and feel" suits that CJ is complaining about, so the contention that this is "pay-back" of course is stupid and silly - but what else is expected?

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Apple tried to challenge the bias direction of Motorola's attempt to extort money from Apple separate from all the other buyers of the chips in question - its a cutthroat move in a cutthroat business - and one of the reasons that Apple has maintained such a large "warchest" as the outcomes of these litigations is not cut and dried. Courts normally do not have a high degree of technical expertise and thus must try on the merits as presented. Unfortunately Motorola was very canny in using the German courts to try the case as they are known to not be FRAND-friendly, and thus gave Moto a chance to win. That being said, if the higher courts on appeal look at Moto's bias activity, they may decide against them, as the EU is reviewing FRAND policy to try and tighten things up on companies that rely on FRAND standard participation to support adoption of their technologies but then turn around and try to use that same position to extort money from sucess competitors in the marketplace.

Originally Posted by ConradJoe

The Watch List:

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Thank you for the excellent and well reasoned post. I also agree on the over the top anti Apple crap being tolerated to add drama here. My ignore list is getting pretty long. My wish is replies to these numb skulls were also blocked if they are on your ignore list.

Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Originally Posted by ConradJoe

Germans may like their tech, but they also like morality.

Originally Posted by Scaramanga89

Joking aside, the more of these details that come out, the more it seems that Apple didn't really play ball when it came to the patents for the iPhone. They just built it, released it and then worried about what they had infringed.... To be fair, they were coming into the game as newbies, but there's still a right and wrong way of doing things.

Originally Posted by Freshmaker

Lol history would disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

If you seriously believe Apple (or anyone really) designs their products in this way, you are either insane or seriously deluded.

You also know nothing about how Apple designs it's products, how the company works in general etc.

[insult removed]

Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Apple tried to challenge the bias direction of Motorola's attempt to extort money from Apple separate from all the other buyers of the chips in question .

Originally Posted by Freshmaker

Lol history would disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Scaramanga89

Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.

.

Originally Posted by KDMeister

So Apple comes out with a phone. In order to build a phone, you have to go out and buy parts which include wireless chips. So who should pay the FRAND? The companies that make the chips or the companies that put the chips together to make a phone. It seems unfair that companies like Motorola who contributed to world wireless standards get to double dip.

Originally Posted by sranger

Pay back is a bitch....

Apple definitely deserved this one....

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

If you seriously believe Apple (or anyone really) designs their products in this way, you are either insane or seriously deluded.

You also know nothing about how Apple designs it's products, how the company works in general etc.

[insult removed]

Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc

Oh really? Considering that a) there's no alternative to iOS yet, since Android has been shot out of the water here already last summer. Maybe you didn't understand the German press releases and reports telling all how Google is data-mining here, with everything, including Google Street View cars and Android.

Germans love their Data Privacy rights FAR more than they will ever hate Apple for stepping on a FRAND patent... believe me.