or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls all 3G iOS devices but iPhone 4S from German online store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pulls all 3G iOS devices but iPhone 4S from German online store

post #1 of 102
Thread Starter 
Apple has removed all 3G/UMTS-capable iPad and iPhone models from its German online store in response to an injunction based on a wireless standard FRAND patent owned by Motorola Mobility.

According to a Friday report by German language news agency dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur), Apple has taken down () 3G iPads and iPhones from its online storefront in compliance of an injunction Motorola won in Mannheim in December 2011.

The news comes mere hours after another Motorola court win in Germany, however that suit pertains to an unrelated patent and has no bearing on the online Apple Store's product removal.

All versions of Apple's 3G/UMTS-capable iPad, including the iPad 2, the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 were pulled from the company's German site as the products were ruled as infringing on a Motorola declared-essential GPRS patent.

The Droid RAZR maker has apparently decided to post the 100 million euro bond required to enforce the injunction, though it is unclear as to why it waited two months to do so.

FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, who attended the December hearing, points out that the next generation iPhone 4S is not included in the injunction because it uses a baseband chip made by Qualcomm while older 3G-capable iDevices were built around chips from Infineon/Intel. He goes on to say that if Motorola and Qualcomm have a cross-license agreement, Apple's newest handset is most likely covered by patent exhaustion as a patent owner can only be paid once for same use of its intellectual property.


The iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 are designated "derzeit nicht verfugbar," or "currently unavailable" | Source: Apple


Mueller notes that Motorola is also attempting to enforce the same patents that brought about the product removal against Apple Inc. in the U.S., and the company has already won a default German judgment due to a "no-show" by Apple's legal team.

All of the products affected by the injunction can still be purchased at German brick-and-mortar shops including the Apple Store.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 102
karma
post #3 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

karma

Never mind that these are FRAND patents and that Motorola will be investigated for them, leading to a potential payment by them to Apple for the lost revenue.

This article is basically slapppy, DaHarder, Galbi, (and you know the other twenty)'s wet dream.
post #4 of 102
Interesting socioeconomic experiment also pertaining to the Ipad name trademark issue in China. Curious as to how this will affect public perception of Motorola vs. Apple in Germany, impact of sales, social freedom issues, grey market sales.

Also good experiment on reaction of western culture free market vs. eastern culture free market. A graduate level thesis in here eventually.
post #5 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

Interesting socioeconomic experiment also pertaining to the Ipad name trademark issue in China. Curious as to how this will affect public perception of Motorola vs. Apple in Germany, impact of sales, social freedom issues, grey market sales.

Also good experiment on reaction of western culture free market vs. eastern culture free market. A graduate level thesis in here eventually.

I almost miss college.

Edit: well I miss college, but for different reasons
post #6 of 102
Cue responses from experts in German IP law...

EDIT: Tallest Skill gets in there before I can post.
post #7 of 102
The timing of Apples "compliance" with the injunctions is interesting. The european commission ramped up it's investigation into Samsung this week over FRAND-patens. Many observers also called upon Motorola in this matter. This could backfire for Motorola/Google in the long run, if the EC will investigate them, too.

Also, this will have nearly no impact on Apple at all. Most phones in Germany are purchased on a subsidiary plan from telco providers, including iPhones and UMTS-iPads. Of course, Apple does not provide numbers. But if you look at numbers presented from wireless providers, most of Apple's german sales are made through providers and other third party resales. All of them are not covered by the injunction.
post #8 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Never mind that these are FRAND patents and that Motorola will be investigated for them, leading to a potential payment by them to Apple for the lost revenue.

This article is basically slapppy, DaHarder, Galbi, (and you know the other twenty)'s wet dream.

What I find especially interesting is, that it was not clear at this time, if Motorola actually posted the necessary security deposit for the injunction to become valid. This deposit is usually mandatory with preliminary injunctions, to cover possible damages if the injunction is revoked.
post #9 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Never mind that these are FRAND patents and that Motorola will be investigated for them, leading to a potential payment by them to Apple for the lost revenue.

This article is basically slapppy, DaHarder, Galbi, (and you know the other twenty)'s wet dream.


As Apple refused to sign the FRAND agreement, but rather wanted to sign another agreement with FRAND clauses and prices included, they forgeit their FRAND rights. Motorala were not obliged to licence the patents to Apple under this altered agreement. At least that is how this judge sees it. Apple can enter a FRAND agreement and get the ban lifted instantly but in doing so they forfeit their right to fight the patent itself which is what they want to do. It also opens the door for Motorola to ask a higher than FRAND payment for items already sold outside of the FRAND agreement.

It all comes down to if Apple want to fight this all the way, and then seeing who wins. I believe that Apple know they are violating patents but think they can have the patent invalidated in a court battle.

The Samsung one is a totally different situation because Samsung are arguing they should have more than FRAND payments for FRAND patents. I doubt that Samsung will be penalised heavily for this as they are trying this out against Apple, not an up and coming company that doesnt have the cash to fight Samsung in any arena they wish.

Motorola will not be investigated for trying to enforce a patent that Apple have refused to sign a FRAND agreement for. Had Apple signed the agreement it would be another story.


That is a lay man's interpretation based on what I have read over the last few months. Of course it is only as good as the reliability of my information.
post #10 of 102
This gives Motorola a good bargaining chip if they lose the upcoming cases with Apple in the USA and have to withdraw their products. Ultimately it will come down to a trade of patents and licenses etc but I can't see that happening for a long while yet. I have no idea how well Apple is doing in Germany but if they have a large fan base it will not do Moto's PR much good.
post #11 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairb View Post

...but rather wanted to sign another agreement with FRAND clauses and prices included...

I believe you meant to say that Apple's counter-offer had non-FRAND clauses. That's the reason Motorola was permitted to reject it.

Quote:
Had Apple signed the agreement it would be another story.

Indeed. In addition, had Motorola's initial offer been non-FRAND to begin with, it also would have been another story.

Otherwise, layman-to-layman, I think you summarized the situation very nicely.
post #12 of 102
What this means big picture is anyone's guess.

I'm going to wager, not much, and everything will be resolved soon enough.
post #13 of 102
Well, it's unfortunate to see these lawsuits giving actual results. In the end of the day, only the consumers will lose. Hopefully this and other similar nonsense will be resolved quickly.
post #14 of 102
Apple still sells the 4s and all Wifi iPads via Online Store. It's only the iPhone 3GS & 4 + all 3G iPads, which they removed from the Online Store. But those devices can be purchased via any retailer or in stores, still. Further, with iPad 3 around, it's no risky game for Apple.

But it's risky for MMI who'll have to compensate for all lost sales via the Apple Online Store if the patent can be invalidated successfully. This could reach a 10 digit high amount until early spring. By any means this would doom MMI. And yes, still there is a EC investigation threat to MMI for fighting over FRAND patents. Third is the EC commission investigating the Google/MMI merger.

By fearing billion high penalties this could get expensive for Google.

I think it's a combined strategy by Apple to drag Google out of the MMI merger and as well destroy MMI in just one punch.

Remember, Apple initially requested MMI to deploy a 2B$ bond for the injunction, just for the German market ! Well, the judge said: 100M$ is enough, but MMI still has to pay if Apple can appeal it. This all is much too huge for MMI. If they loose they'll be finished, while for Apple it's just ...nothing.
post #15 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Never mind that these are FRAND patents and that Motorola will be investigated for them, leading to a potential payment by them to Apple for the lost revenue.

This article is basically slapppy, DaHarder, Galbi, (and you know the other twenty)'s wet dream.

Just so were clear...
Apple wins suit against someone = good and fair
Apple loses suit against someone = bad and unfair

Pretty much accurate?

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #16 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by henniman View Post

Apple still sells the 4s and all Wifi iPads via Online Store. It's only the iPhone 3GS & 4 + all 3G iPads, which they removed from the Online Store. But those devices can be purchased via any retailer or in stores, still. Further, with iPad 3 around, it's no risky game for Apple.

But it's risky for MMI who'll have to compensate for all lost sales via the Apple Online Store if the patent can be invalidated successfully. This could reach a 10 digit high amount until early spring. By any means this would doom MMI. And yes, still there is a EC investigation threat to MMI for fighting over FRAND patents. Third is the EC commission investigating the Google/MMI merger.

By fearing billion high penalties this could get expensive for Google.

I think it's a combined strategy by Apple to drag Google out of the MMI merger and as well destroy MMI in just one punch.

Remember, Apple initially requested MMI to deploy a 2B$ bond for the injunction, just for the German market ! Well, the judge said: 100M$ is enough, but MMI still has to pay if Apple can appeal it. This all is much too huge for MMI. If they loose they'll be finished, while for Apple it's just ...nothing.

I agree that Apple has something up its sleeve. This action seems to be happening in a way that is much too casual. I think we'll only need about 3-4 months to see if this is actually a win for Motorola.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #17 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Just so were clear...
Apple wins suit against someone = good and fair
Apple loses suit against someone = bad and unfair

Pretty much accurate?

Yup... have you got a problem with that?!
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #18 of 102
I've just checked the Apple Store for Germany and the iPhone 4S is available to buy.
post #19 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Cue responses from experts in German IP law...

EDIT: Tallest Skill gets in there before I can post.

What Tallest Skil posted actually comes from several articles. This is an essential patent the loss of which means you can't provide any 3g connections at all. There's no way around it. That makes it FRAND. So all Apple has to do is show that they played by the rules and Motorola didn't and the products will be back in the store and that bond will go to Apple. And the Motorola will likely end up slapped with the same anti trust investigation that Samsung is facing in the EU (also using FRAND applicable patents to block competition)

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 #20 of 102
With all these court cases Apple have been in, how many have they actually won? The answer is they have lost alot more than they have won! They secured an injunction against Samsung from selling their tablet, now Apple cannot sell their iPad's and most of their iPhones! Who is loosing now, Apple?

Apple thought they were being smart going around dragging everyone to court, but it have blown back in their faces!!! Good enough for you Apple, you wanted to fight, but you are loosing hand over fist! If this was a football team, the fans would be calling for resignations!
Whoever decided to go down this route wasn't the smartest one in the room at the time!
post #21 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohcomeon View Post

I've just checked the Apple Store for Germany and the iPhone 4S is available to buy.

As I recall, this all started before the 4s was released and since it wasn't on the list of offending products its in the clear. for now. you can bet Motorola will try to get it pulled also

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 #22 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Just so were clear...
Apple wins suit against someone = good and fair
Apple loses suit against someone = bad and unfair

Pretty much accurate?

Not completely. Because the someone Apple is losing against is of late using patents that shouldn't be allowed to be used in such ways. Apple's patents aren't under FRAND requirements so they are free to use them as they please until a court invalidates them.

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 #23 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I agree that Apple has something up its sleeve. This action seems to be happening in a way that is much too casual. I think we'll only need about 3-4 months to see if this is actually a win for Motorola.

Yes especially as yesterdays court decision is around the iCloud issue / some MMI patent about device/cloud data sync. It was not about any circuitry or 3G tech.

The iCloud thing can be worked around in software but Apple will try to invalidate the MMI patent either way.

So the removal of the devices from the Online Store has NOTHING to do with yesterdays court decision, but it's related to a december 2011 preliminary(!) ruling about a MMI FRAND (!) patent, where MMI also "won".

So todays Apple action of removing some 2nd line devices just from its Online store looks 100% like an escalation, because from now on the money clock for MMI is ticking!

Apple may say in May please pay: "Look, 300.000 iPhone4+3GS+iPad3G sold per week via Online Store, average rev/device: 600", times 8 weeks = 1.4 billion = 2 billion $, Motorola please pay.

Plus EU commission penalizing FRAND violation: another billion $.
Does Google still want to take it ? Or should they better lower their offer to MMI shareholders ? Or withdraw by paying a very high compensation to MMI ?

For AAPL this is nearly a nonevent, for MMI this is sheer fight for survival.
post #24 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Yup... have you got a problem with that?!



like this isn't a site for Apple enthusiasts is it? /sarcasm
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #25 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeaman View Post

With all these court cases Apple have been in, how many have they actually won? The answer is they have lost alot more than they have won!

Not true. Here in Germany Apple successfully banned the Galaxy tab for months, especially before Xmas. Now that the Galaxy is old tech and the iPad 3 around, Apples mission accomplished.

One has to understand that Apple uses different strategies for the major Android vendors:
1. HTC: "Strip them!" - HTCs weakness: worst devices among all Androids. So Apple pursued in having HTC strip down their Android software, so they feel even worse. Result: HTCs loosing against other Androids.

2. Samsung: "Detain them!" Samsung had the best devices & the best organisation. Their weakness: They copied Apple. So Apple sued them over design and reached successful injunctions for new Samsung devices. If Apple had not done, who knows where Samsung would stand today.

3. Motorola: "Kill them!" The economically weakest among Androids. So Apple seeks to hurt them with damage compensations, like now in Germany. That market is just ideal: not too much in focus like the US market, but heavy enough to punch a 2B$ payment at MMI which will finish them.

The Google/MMI merger will fail and with it the new Google strategy of becoming an All-in-one vendor. This has highest priority is Cupertino for sure. For that Apple has to hurt MMI hard way.
post #26 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohcomeon View Post

I've just checked the Apple Store for Germany and the iPhone 4S is available to buy.

...FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, who attended the December hearing, points out that the next generation iPhone 4S is not included in the injunction ....
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #27 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Just so were clear...
Apple wins suit against someone = good and fair
Apple loses suit against someone = bad and unfair

Pretty much accurate?

Yes.

Apple wins suit: The patent existed and was valid. It has yet to be challenged. For all the talk you trolls spout about "patenting a rectangle", why hasn't that patent been challenged? They've had plenty of time to do it. And if it's as generic as you claim, it will obviously be overturned. It hasn't. If Apple had tried to "patent a rectangle" as you all claim, I'd be on your side. Attempting to patent a simple shape is ludicrous. But they haven't. And no one has challenged the patent.

Apple loses suit: The patent is FRAND and is valid. It is in the running to be challenged, as I already mentioned. If it is challenged, then it's challenged. If Motorola is forced to license it, they're forced to license it. If they're forced to then pay damages to Apple for lost sales during this down time, they're forced to pay sales. Nowhere did I say they WILL or SHOULD pay Apple for the downtime. I said specifically that it's possible, not guaranteed.

If you want my personal opinion, I wish that Apple's tablet patent was just a little more specific. Then there'd be no question as to the infringement of Samsung crap. And, if Apple has been violating these Motorola patens, it is my opinion that that's wrong and reflects poorly on Apple, even if the patents are FRAND and Motorola should have been licensing them in the first place. If they're found to be infringing, Apple should probably pay some damages to Motorola… at least until the patents are found to be FRAND, in which case, payment should be made from Motorola TO Apple, minus the cost of the damages from Apple's infringement.
post #28 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

...FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, who attended the December hearing, points out that the next generation iPhone 4S is not included in the injunction ....

because it has a Qualcomm chip which is not covered by the MMI patent. So will iPad3's which will be available also in German AAPL Online Store. BTW, all of the devices still available at Telcos (major source here) and all retailers, no big issue for customers. But big issue for MMI which will be accounted for all damages.
post #29 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Never mind that these are FRAND patents and that Motorola will be investigated for them, leading to a potential payment by them to Apple for the lost revenue.

This article is basically slapppy, DaHarder, Galbi, (and you know the other twenty)'s wet dream.

Truth is hard to swallow.

"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 #30 of 102
Yes, I know I meant spell it RIGHT, but I'm making a point.

Those little dots over the vowels, which are called umlauts, are not decoration and they are not optional. They make a big difference in pronunciation, because they are a way of writing vowels for which there are otherwise no letters in the alphabet. The word is not "verfugbar" but "verfügbar." Switch to a Mac and you have no difficulty typing it.

Luckily, there is no such word as "verfugbar" so you get off easy this time. Develop good habits now to avoid disasters later. Drucken means print but drücken means push, but worse, schwül means stuffy, but schwul means queer.
post #31 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Truth is hard to swallow.

Yes, I've found that to be true about you guys.
post #32 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

karma

I will chalk this up as a win for the battle, but not for the war with iOS. iPhone 4S is still available, so until that is banned, Apple still has a very slim chance to gain a foothold there.
post #33 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

I will chalk this up as a win for the battle, but not for the war with iOS. iPhone 4S is still available, so until that is banned, Apple still has a very slim chance to gain a foothold there.

So you're in a war against iOS.

Why are you on this website, again?
post #34 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

karma

There's no reason to bring religion/magic into it.
post #35 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post

What this means big picture is anyone's guess.

I'm going to wager, not much, and everything will be resolved soon enough.

I think this is the most reasonable interpretation of the news on the thread so far.

It seems to me that even if Apple doesn't get this reversed, that the "worst-case" bottom line here is that they pay Motorola a small fee. So what.
post #36 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you're in a war against iOS.

Why are you on this website, again?

For our entertainment... and, we need a fall guy.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #37 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

For our entertainment... and, we need a fall guy.

Sure, but we don't need 20 of them.
post #38 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeaman View Post

Who is loosing now, Apple?

You because you can't spell 'losing'.
post #39 of 102
Bummer. Germany is a big economy.
post #40 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeaman View Post

With all these court cases Apple have been in, how many have they actually won?

Most, I believe.

Quote:
The answer is they have lost alot more than they have won!

Indeed? Do you have a handy list?

Quote:
Who is loosing now, Apple?

Motorola. Or maybe you don't think that bleeding money, marketshare, customer satisfaction, or point is 'loosing' compared to Apple making OVER FIFTY PERCENT of ALL cell phone profits, selling millions more devices every single quarter, and having the best customer satisfaction of anyone.

Quote:
Apple thought they were being smart going around dragging everyone to court, but it have blown back in their faces!!!

So I assume you'll come back once these FRAND patents are forced to be licensed and claim they're not FRAND and that Apple is being a 'bully' and doing it illegally.

Quote:
Whoever decided to go down this route wasn't the smartest one in the room at the time!

Must resist urge to continue spinning this post back against Motorola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls all 3G iOS devices but iPhone 4S from German online store