or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC rules Motorola did not violate Apple patents [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC rules Motorola did not violate Apple patents [u]

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Apple's worldwide battle against Google's Android platform was dealt a blow as the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Motorola's Droid line of smartphones do not violate Apple's patents [updated with statement from Motorola].

Update: "We are pleased with today's favorable outcome for Motorola Mobility," Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, said in a statement. "Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to develop technology and build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio. We are proud to leverage this broad and deep portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience."

The ITC's preliminary decision on Friday, which must still be passed by the entire six-members of the commission, to a complaint first filed in October 2010 by Apple that alleged Motorola violated several of the iPhone maker's patents, reports CNET.

In the original complaint, Apple said that Motorola's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X and other smartphones and software infringed on certain existing multitouch patents.

If the Cupertino, Calif., company won the case, Motorola would have suffered a product import ban similar to Samsung's German injunction. The decision was initially planned for November 2011, but the ITC pushed back the date saying that a final ruling would be announced in March.

Motorola's win may give Google a direct advantage in the future, however, as the internet search giant is in the midst of buying the once-dominating phone maker. The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether.

The news is the latest development in an ongoing war between Apple and smartphone manufacturers building handsets running Google's Android OS. A recent report said that the litigation can be seen as a potential windfall for Apple as royalties and licensing fees could possibly equate to unprecedented earnings.
post #2 of 29
Which patents were these, again? It's impossible to keep track.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #3 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Which patents were these, again? It's impossible to keep track.

haha, this. I honestly can't remember either.

Hopefully we'll see less of this this year. It got really old really fast.

For the record, anyone know if there have been any "patent violations" between WP7 devices and the iphones?

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #4 of 29
<< The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether. >>
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple
post #5 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtsmike View Post

<< The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether. >>
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple

I'm sorry, but this article is far from anti-apple.

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #6 of 29
Is this about a specific group of patents or does it say Motorola doesn't violate any of iOS patents?

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtsmike View Post

<< The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether. >>
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple

Apple argues the validity of the patents. They can't argue against the patents if they pay frand. Frand patent owners should be able to charge more to users who lose their challenge while using it the same time. Apple gambled and lost.
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We are pleased with today's favorable outcome for Motorola Mobility," Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, said in a statement. "Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to develop technology and build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio. We are proud to leverage this broad and deep portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience."

"...But we'll be damned if you think we're going to respect others' IP."
post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

"...But we'll be damned if you think we're going to respect others' IP."

Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?

We'll see how this plays out long-term. Other than that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?

logic doesn't work. try illogic.

Try this: "Pineapple cucumber zipper fish boot....understand?"
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

We'll see how this plays out long-term. Other than that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You will also have to agree to disagree with the ITC and the experts that have far more information and facts about the case than any of us do..
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?

That isn't what they said at all. This does not indemnify them against any potential patent violations which seems to be your implication by simply stating " they have respected others' IP", it's very clearly stated that the ITC's preliminary decision is that Motorola didn't violate any of the Apple patents in question.

Check out Apple, Inc.'s legal history with Apple Corps for a great example of how winning one battle isn't necessary winning a war.


PS: I'm surprised people haven't jumped to the irrational conclusion that Apple has therefore violated Motorola's patents.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Is this about a specific group of patents or does it say Motorola doesn't violate any of iOS patents?

It's a specific group concerning multitouch.

And this is far from over. apple will likely appeal, or could take it to the courts. Or file a new suit based on newer patents, especially if the newer ones are more specific.

This is SOP for all companies. apple isn't doing anything that every other company hasn't and won't do. We just hear about it more because Apple is better hit fodder and thus more profitable for sites to talk about

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Which patents were these, again? It's impossible to keep track.

Edit: never mind

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #16 of 29
Awfully quiet on the Apple front.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtsmike View Post

<< The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether. >>
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple

No, it means that Apple will have to pay for it's copycat practices of what someone else has invented
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It's a specific group concerning multitouch.

And this is far from over. apple will likely appeal, or could take it to the courts. Or file a new suit based on newer patents, especially if the newer ones are more specific.

This is SOP for all companies. apple isn't doing anything that every other company hasn't and won't do. We just hear about it more because Apple is better hit fodder and thus more profitable for sites to talk about


Or this is an Apple fan site
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom View Post

For the record, anyone know if there have been any "patent violations" between WP7 devices and the iphones?

There aren't enough WP7 devices to make it worth while going after MS. :-)

Also I believe Apple and MS cross license patents. Remember Microsoft has even more patents than Apple (Only IBM has more software patents). A patent battle with MS would be very expensive.
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

No, it means that Apple will have to pay for it's copycat practices of what someone else has invented

you really do not have a clue what essential means do you? it is amzing just how stupid people that comment on things really are. the basic design of the GSM network is built around certain patents. these are essential to using the network. they were integrated into the system with the caviate that as essential patents the use of them cannot be denied. it has nothing to do with copying!!! the system is designed by the governments to use these patented ideas and there for every phone maker must use them or the phone will not work!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? therefore no one can be refused or over charged for the use of it. get some education before commenting!
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

Motorola originally approached Apple in 2007 and offered to license the patent on FRAND terms.
Apple refused.
Apple then drew up a different offer to license the patent under FRAND rates going forward, but included a clause that allowed them to contest the validity of the patent in court.
Motorola then claimed that the clause amounted to special treatment, and thus was not FRAND. They also claimed that because Apple refused to license the FRAND license prior, the time period they were in violation is not subject to FRAND terms.
The German courts agreed with Motorola.

Presumably, had Apple agreed to the FRAND terms in the first place, and paid those rates for all applicable periods when they used the technology, they would still have been able to challenge the patents' validity in court. I'm concluding that from the fact that their validity challenge does not appear to have excluded them from FRAND licensing going forwards.

If that is true then it seems they took an unnecessary risk in refusing the retrospective FRAND offer.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

There aren't enough WP7 devices to make it worth while going after MS. :-)

That might change when this hits the market..
Lumia 900

[/QUOTE]Also I believe Apple and MS cross license patents. Remember Microsoft has even more patents than Apple (Only IBM has more software patents). A patent battle with MS would be very expensive.[/QUOTE]

As an iPad2 user and a WP7 owner, the differences in the OS are huge. But I haven't seen anything in the news regarding lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft over WP7.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincent.pendleton View Post

That might change when this hits the market..
Lumia 900

Yeah, it looks like a stretched iPod nano, but there aren't really any patent problems.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincent.pendleton View Post

As an iPad2 user and a WP7 owner, the differences in the OS are huge. But I haven't seen anything in the news regarding lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft over WP7.

You are just looking at the surface layer. Yes the tiles in WP7 look very different to iOS, but underneath there is plenty tech that probably uses Apple patents. The inverse is also true. MS has been making mobile OSes for a very long time and has a huge number of patents. It is highly unlike that iOS doesn't include Microsoft patented tech.

This isn't like Apple v Android. With Apple v Microsoft both sides have a massive arsenal of patents. The only sensible option is to cross license which I believe they do.

You therefore won't see any patent battles between them.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

You really do not have a clue as to what happened do you? it is amzing (sic) just how stupid people that comment on things really are.

Motorola originally approached Apple in 2007 and offered to license the patent on FRAND terms.
Apple refused.
Apple then drew up a different offer to license the patent under FRAND rates going forward, but included a clause that allowed them to contest the validity of the patent in court.
Motorola then claimed that the clause amounted to special treatment, and thus was not FRAND. They also claimed that because Apple refused to license the FRAND license prior, the time period they were in violation is not subject to FRAND terms.
The German courts agreed with Motorola.

So the fact that its an essential patent not the issue in this case. Apple refused the FRAND offer and wanted a special clause inserted in their license (i.e. NOT fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory). DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Therefore, they cannot claim a FRAND defense. get some education before commenting!

Why should Apple pay a licence that was already paid by the chipmaker of the chips they were using?

Would you like to have to pay additional licence fees, after you buy a product because companies that own standards based FRAND patents are allowed to double dip?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Why should Apple pay a licence that was already paid by the chipmaker of the chips they were using?

Apple does design plenty of their own chips so they could very well be the chipmaker. I think they licensed with Synaptic.

Even if Apple isn't the initial inventor of trackpads they surely have their own patents on it and have revolutionized the way we use trackpads from the iPod's touch-senstive click wheel to the large Mac trackpads to iOS-based device touch screens no one else has done it better.

If they weren't first to have multitouch trackpads they were certainly the first to make it usable. Synaptic was years behind Apple to the consumer market but still struggled due to Windows and OEMs issues that made it poor. I'm not sure what was wrong with the HP Envy's trackpad but it didn't work as it should.

At CES Synaptic introduced a reduction of trackpad chips from 8 to 1. I have a feeling Apple did this a long time ago.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If they weren't first to have multitouch trackpads they were certainly the first to make it usable.

One of the issues I have with patents is frequently the company who makes it usable, brings it to market and probably independently invented the idea (none of which is cheap) is not the company that has the patent. It is often some company that just sits on patents doing nothing with them.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

You will also have to agree to disagree with the ITC and the experts that have far more information and facts about the case than any of us do..

Yutter rubbish, remember Apple won one case against Kodak and latter it was reversed.
post #29 of 29
Imagine a castle under siege: military tacticians might suggest careful placement of weapons to be used only when the target is in range and when each hit will confer valuable benefit. In contrast, Apple are just aimlessly throwing stones over the wall like panicking children.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC rules Motorola did not violate Apple patents [u]