or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iCloud › Motorola wins German injunction against Apple push services
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola wins German injunction against Apple push services

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
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 ]
post #2 of 31
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.
post #3 of 31
Oh Well.. You win some, you lose some
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #4 of 31
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 !!
post #5 of 31
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.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #6 of 31
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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #7 of 31
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.
post #8 of 31
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
post #9 of 31
insult removed
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #10 of 31
racist comment removed
post #11 of 31
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?
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #12 of 31
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.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #13 of 31
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.
post #14 of 31
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?
post #15 of 31
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.
post #16 of 31
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.
post #17 of 31
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?
Mac Pro 5,1: 12 x 2.93GHz / 64 GB / ATI 5870 / 1.5+2+2+2+3TB / ACD 30" + 20"
Reply
Mac Pro 5,1: 12 x 2.93GHz / 64 GB / ATI 5870 / 1.5+2+2+2+3TB / ACD 30" + 20"
Reply
post #18 of 31
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.
Mac Pro 5,1: 12 x 2.93GHz / 64 GB / ATI 5870 / 1.5+2+2+2+3TB / ACD 30" + 20"
Reply
Mac Pro 5,1: 12 x 2.93GHz / 64 GB / ATI 5870 / 1.5+2+2+2+3TB / ACD 30" + 20"
Reply
post #19 of 31
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.
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

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.

Yep, wrong thread. My fault.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


I thought SJ said that Apple uses Microsoft's Push Technology for the iOS. He said that during the keynote when Push was introduced.

only for exchange.
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

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.

Are you saying that Motorola's "push" patent which this injunction is based on is not FRAND? Are you sure?

RIM, Microsoft, et al are all using push technology in one form or other. Did they all license the push tech from Motorola?

I am surprised by this injunction and the win by Motorola. Surely, Apple must have known about this patent and I assumed that they were using a FRAND defense.

Does this injunction/win by Motorola mean that it could go after Microsoft and RIM next?
post #23 of 31
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

Wow. Just wow.
post #24 of 31
It's time like this that I think this whole intellectual property situation is out of control.
post #25 of 31
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

Inspiring quote, not related to reality. In other words, why the hell did Nazi Germany have all that antiaircraft artillery if they didn't think they would need it? Again, nice try, thanks for playing, enjoy the home version of our game!

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

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.

Apple couldn't assert a FRAND defense in the iCloud case, as it wasn't a FRAND patent at issue. I doubt Apple will settle the iCloud matter since Google is trying to use Motorola to get Apple to give all Android hardware makers a free pass. Apple will likely just work around the patent, or take the hit in Germany, and hope for a big win in the US.
post #27 of 31
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

I don't understand the significance of your quote being that Motorola actually sued Apple first.
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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 ]

So the PUSH part of the cloud is the problem? I don't think it would be a big deal to remove the PUSH part of the cloud, I turn mine off and do it manually because I don't want everything pushed to all of my devices, that is a waste of space and time. Is there another factor other than the push service? Thanks
post #29 of 31
Is Apple banned in Germany now or what?
post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I don't understand the significance of your quote being that Motorola actually sued Apple first.

Mr. Mueller (FOSSPatents) reports that Apple had already signaled it's intent to sue Moto. They just weren't as fast racing to the courthouse, a tactical error on Apple's part according to him.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amoled View Post

Is Apple banned in Germany now or what?

No, but they now have to disable push email notifications in Germany (pending appeals)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17152225
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iCloud
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iCloud › Motorola wins German injunction against Apple push services