or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iCloud › Motorola forces Apple to halt iCloud push services in Germany
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola forces Apple to halt iCloud push services in Germany

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
Apple announced on Friday that it had shut down iCloud push services in Germany, explaining that the move was the direct result of a successful Motorola bid for an injunction against the cloud syncing service over data pushing technology.

The Cupertino, Calif., company posted the news () in the support section of its German website, and gave a brief summary of the injunction as well as suggestions for temporary solutions that iCloud users can follow while the company appeals the decision, reports German language site iPhone-ticker.de.

Apple lists the service outage as a () on its support document page in an apparent attempt to direct affected iCloud users to the article if they query the site about the push email stoppage.

Besides push mail, the halting of Apple's push services will stop the syncing of calendars and contacts for MobileMe until users change certain device settings. iCloud users will not be affected.

A rough translation of the summary describes the recent court case in which Motorola Mobility successfully leveraged a data pushing technology patent against Apple in Mannheim.

The document notes that while iCloud and existing MobileMe users within the borders of Germany can't receive push email at this time, all received messages can still be accessed through either the iCloud website or by reconfiguring an iOS device's settings. All non-mobile products, such as iMacs and MacBook Pros, are not affected as they do not use wireless data pushing services.

Once a user is outside of Germany, they must manually reactivate push mail in the device settings of their iOS device.


"The push e-mail service for users of iCloud and MobileMe mail is currently unavailable within the borders of Germany" | Source: Apple.com


Motorola first filed the complaint at the Mannheim Regional Court in April, 2011, an claimed that Apple's push mail service infringed on an existing patent. Judge Andreas Voss handed down the decision in early February, giving Motorola the ability to enforce an injunction against any Apple product that serves as a data pushing system.

Because the ruling was "preliminarily enforceable," it can be inferred that Motorola posted the required 100 million euro bond to enforce the injunction. If Apple's expected appeal at the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court finds that the original ruling was incorrect, the RAZR maker will be forced to pay damages in a subsequent hearing.

Push email allows users to receive new mail almost instantly by "pushing" new data to a user's device as soon as it is received at the server. The system is the successor of previous so-called "pull" mail services that require an email client to check the server for new messages as set intervals.

Apple's solution to the push service stoppage is as follows (translated from German support site):

For iCloud Mail:

On the Home screen, go to "Settings" > "Mail, Contacts, Calendars."
Tap "Fetch New Data."
Select a scheduled time to fetch new data.
The "Push" setting must be turned on in order to ensure the continued push for contacts and calendar service.

MobileMe Mail:

On the Home screen, go to "Settings" > "Mail, Contacts, Calendars."
Tap "Fetch New Data".
Select a scheduled time to fetch new data.
Tap "Advanced."
Select a MobileMe account from the accounts list.
Tap "Fetch" under "Select Schedule."
Tap "Advanced" to return to the previous screen.
Repeat steps 5-7 for other MobileMe accounts on your device.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 69
No cloud syncing for der Germans ... physically plug your iDevices in to your PC/Mac for the same effect.
post #3 of 69
For God's sake.......

If push is unavailable, does calendar & address book auto syncing not work?
post #4 of 69
karma... apple was not the first to sue, but instead of damages they were the ones asking for sales injunctions etc. I would have gone the microsoft route and just take royalties (works two ways, so in the end the effect may be neutral)... but hey, I'm also not the one running a multi-billion company, so my thoughts seem to be irrelevant in this matter
post #5 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

karma... apple was not the first to sue, but instead of damages they were the ones asking for sales injunctions etc. I would have gone the microsoft route and just take royalties (works two ways, so in the end the effect may be neutral)... but hey, I'm also not the one running a multi-billion company, so my thoughts seem to be irrelevant in this matter

Think about it,,, This will have a minimal impact on Apple. People will still buy iOS products.
Allowing a bunch of copycats around the world to steal valuable iPhone technologies for peanuts royalties would be worse. That would also set precedence for them to keep copying the iOS devices and there would be more lawsuits anyway because copycats would violate the agreements. It is better to make all copying off limits.

This will likely be temporary until an appeal.

I still side with Apple to bury Googorola in the long term.
post #6 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netimoon View Post

For God's sake.......

If push is unavailable, does calendar & address book auto syncing not work?

Read the article.

Besides push mail, the halting of Apple's push services will stop the syncing of calendars and contacts for MobileMe users, though iCloud users will not be affected.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #7 of 69
Meine iCloud ist Kaput!

Sorry that was lame....
post #8 of 69
Motorola is absolutely right to go after copycats.
Besides, iCloud absolutely sucks.
post #9 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Think about it,,, This will have a minimal impact on Apple. People will still buy iOS products.
Allowing a bunch of copycats around the world to steal valuable iPhone technologies for peanuts royalties would be worse.

valuable iPhone technology like slide-to-unlock, the rectangle with rounded corners or the bounce at the end of a scrolling list ? Because those are the actual valuable technologies Apple is using to get other products banned.

Apple should just build on its real value, the complete package, the quality, the eco-system.
post #10 of 69
I thought Apple was using Exchange active sync, licensed from Microsoft who incidentally are suing Motorola over the same thing.

So what happens if you set your MobileMe/iCloud account as Exchange?
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 #11 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

valuable iPhone technology like slide-to-unlock, the rectangle with rounded corners or the bounce at the end of a scrolling list ? Because those are the actual valuable technologies Apple is using to get other products banned.

Apple should just build on its real value, the complete package, the quality, the eco-system.

You would be surprised how far small aesthetic simplicities such as these can take you in differentiating your product and winning sales.

Make no mistake. The simple slide to unlock is huge. It is very well known since it's introduction by Apple and it will be unique to the iPhone. It is also used in other areas of iOS in a consistent way. Moreover, it is probably much better in terms of resource consumption than other methods in use.
post #12 of 69
Apple should have learned from Microsoft that licensing is the way to go. Nobody but the lawyers win in these situations.
post #13 of 69
Wireless push.. Can it even be patented?
Sounds too generic of you ask me..
post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

You would be surprised how far small aesthetic simplicities such as these can take you in differentiating your product and winning sales.

Make no mistake. The simple slide to unlock is huge. It is very well known since it's introduction by Apple and it will be unique to the iPhone. It is also used in other areas of iOS in a consistent way. Moreover, it is probably much better in terms of resource consumption than other methods in use.

Going off-topic in 3.2.1...

Slide to unlock had been available beforce the iphone, both physical (famous garden fence) as well as physical buttons on the device itself (had it on my walkman in the early 90's). The current implementation is a 1:1 virtualization of such a locking mechanism.

Even the touchscreen method of slide to unlock has been implemented before see NeoNode N1

But would this be a differentatior for you to buy a phone ? For me no way, the ecosystem and the global user-interaction would be, and they are not significantly affected by the given samples
post #15 of 69
Sad to say but I'm glad I don't live in Germany. My life practically depends on Push.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

Apple should have learned from Microsoft that licensing is the way to go. Nobody but the lawyers win in these situations.

I suppose Apple have an iLegal department to deal with illegal uses of...
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Going off-topic in 3.2.1...

Slide to unlock had been available beforce the iphone, both physical (famous garden fence) as well as physical buttons on the device itself (had it on my walkman in the early 90's). The current implementation is a 1:1 virtualization of such a locking mechanism.

Even the touchscreen method of slide to unlock has been implemented before see NeoNode N1

But would this be a differentatior for you to buy a phone ? For me no way, the ecosystem and the global user-interaction would be, and they are not significantly affected by the given samples

Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their
"slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.

1) It is a gesture, ie. it has to be done as a swipe in one go, like go back from the now playing screen in the music app, not like changing home screen pages (1:1)
2) On the NNN1, it is a generic OS-wide gesture for "Yes", the opposite is "No", and you can just press the "Yes" or "No" keys on the device instead. Apple has nothing remotely like this.
3) Whilst not sliding your finger all the way across the NNN1 will not unlock, this is a deliberate limitation of its weird 9x9 grid of IR sensors (similar to the Surface bathtub), not because it has an "unlocking zone" like apple's patent (and let's not forget, implementation)
4) The NNN1 provides no visualisation of any movement, just a very feature-phone-esque padlock screen. It may seem superficially similar, but is much more similar to "Press Unlock then *" than it is to "Slide to Unlock".

</RANT>
post #18 of 69
Sooo. Are motorola going after microsoft and activesync next? or do they already license this patent 'for paging devices'?

I suppose the current workaround is to switch to fetch?
post #19 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post

Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their
"slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.

When Apple tried to assert that patent against Samsung in the Netherlands, the Dutch Court disagreed with you. They found the NeoNode to be valid prior art and offered the court's opinion that Apple's patent was very likely invalid.

"(The) Dutch court... decision also rendered the European version (EP20080903) of Apple's Slide-to-Unlock patent as obvious, trivial, "not inventive", and likely invalid.

Samsung presented the Neonode N1m in the Dutch court as "prior art", which likely led the court to refuse considering the patent as valid. The judge noted that the only difference between the Neonode N1m and Apple's Slide- to-Unlock patent is the unlock image that accompanies the unlock gesture. But such unlock image was seen as "obvious", and therefore not worthy of a patent at all."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

When Apple tried to assert that patent against Samsung in the Netherlands, the Dutch Court disagreed with you. They found the NeoNode to be valid prior art and offered the court's opinion that Apple's patent was very likely invalid.

"(The) Dutch court... decision also rendered the European version (EP20080903) of Apple's Slide-to-Unlock patent as obvious, trivial, "not inventive", and likely invalid.

Samsung presented the Neonode N1m in the Dutch court as "prior art", which likely led the court to refuse considering the patent as valid. The judge noted that the only difference between the Neonode N1m and Apple's Slide- to-Unlock patent is the unlock image that accompanies the unlock gesture. But such unlock image was seen as "obvious", and therefore not worthy of a patent at all."

But that ruling came before Apple was actually awarded the patent for "slide to unlock". Apple was awarded the patent in Oct.2011. The Dutch ruling (concerning the "slide to unlock") in favor of Samsung, came in Aug. 2011. So obviously the Dutch was wrong. The patent was not invalidated by any prior art. Not yet at least.
post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post

Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their
"slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.
...

Would the unimaginative please stop bringing up how the Neonode was not exactly the same as the iPhone. Neonode's slide-to-unlock achieves the exact same effect as iPhone's with exactly the same gesture, on-screen animation notwithstanding. If Apple's implementation would not work without the guiding image addition (like, if you couldn't unlock an iPhone without looking at it), then I'd accept that the addition is essential.

And why would you call the Neonode a POS? I'd say it was a pioneering device that, for the first time, combined a touchscreen phone, a music player, an Internet communication device, a camera, and a PIM. Mind you, this was several years before the iPhone, when technology simply did not allow for many of the features that we saw later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...8Crxf2s#t=130s
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

But that ruling came before Apple was actually awarded the patent for "slide to unlock". Apple was awarded the patent in Oct.2011. The Dutch ruling (concerning the "slide to unlock") in favor of Samsung, came in Aug. 2011. So obviously the Dutch was wrong. The patent was not invalidated by any prior art. Not yet at least.

If you think it thru you will realize that you've misunderstood something. In this case you've confused the granting of an EU patent with the US version granted 10/11 you've referenced. If Apple didn't have an EU patent at the time how could they have asserted it against Samsung in Europe?

EDIT: I'll include the link to the Apple "slide-to-unlock" patent in Europe. Note the date: 2008.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...964022A1&KC=A1
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 69
Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.
post #24 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.

This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...the-iphone.ars

As you mentioned, and in my opinion (shared by Ars) the potential losers are smartphone users who might be unable to buy a phone that actually has all the features they want due to all these cross-claims of patents infringement.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Motorola is absolutely right to go after copycats...

Ah, the irony.
post #26 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...the-iphone.ars

As you mentioned, and in my opinion (shared by Ars) the potential losers are smartphone users who might be unable to buy a phone that actually has all the features they want due to all these cross-claims of patents infringement.

I agree with you! I have owned several phones on from boths sides of this issue. BUT I really don't care who makes the phone as long as it has the features i want! Wouldn't it be awesome to have a phone that had all the best features of both major mobile phone OSes? The customers would benfit from this type of scenario. I know I left out all the R&D that goes into those features etc.....ect....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If you think it thru you will realize that you've misunderstood something. In this case you've confused the granting of an EU patent with the US version granted 10/11 you've referenced. If Apple didn't have an EU patent at the time how could they have asserted it against Samsung in Europe?

EDIT: I'll include the link to the Apple patent in Europe. Note the date: 2008.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...964022A1&KC=A1



But the question remains valid. Would the Dutch (I believe it was actually just a Judge) still rule in favor of Samsung today, based on the premise that Apple "slide to unlock" patent in the EU is most likely (or will likely be found) invalid due to prior art, now that Apple also has a US patent for "slide to unlock"? Having a US patent does carry some weight in the EU. Yes? Germany has no problem enforcing Apple "slide to unlock" patent on Motorola recently. Isn't Germany part of the same EU patent system? Or does every EU country have their own patent office?
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

But the question remains valid. Would the Dutch (I believe it was actually just a Judge) still rule in favor of Samsung today, based on the premise that Apple "slide to unlock" patent in the EU is most likely (or will likely be found) invalid due to prior art, now that Apple also has a US patent for "slide to unlock"? Having a US patent does carry some weight in the EU. Yes? Germany has no problem enforcing Apple "slide to unlock" patent on Motorola recently. Isn't Germany part of the same EU patent system? Or does every EU country have their own patent office?

The German Court made no judgement on validity. They operate under standards a bit different from most in Europe and were primarily concerned with whether a patent existed.

Some here give significant weight to FOSSPatents views, so I'll post his opinion for those that wish to know what he thinks:
"I believe that Samsung's defense against the slide-to-unlock patent could very well also convince U.S. juries."

He also believes that most patents are invalid as written, so the fact that one is granted isn't proof that it was properly granted and legitimate. That's a statement of his I agree with, tho 1/2 being invalid might be a stretch. I dunno.

EDIT: A minor correction to what Mueller said:
"The big problem with the American and German approach is that in this industry, a majority of all granted patent claims are invalid as granted."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netimoon View Post

For God's sake.......

If push is unavailable, does calendar & address book auto syncing not work?

See the workaround that Apple provided. As long as your device is the one that initiates the sync, it's OK. So set your device to sync once per hour (or whatever time you choose). This simply eliminates the push synchronization.
"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 #30 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple announced on Friday that it had shut down iCloud push services in Germany, explaining that the move was the direct result of a successful Motorola bid for an injunction against the cloud syncing service over data pushing technology.

Motorola has no choice but to enforce their IP!

Apple stole it.
post #31 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Sad to say but I'm glad I don't live in Germany. My life practically depends on Push.

Where else did Apple steal Motorola's tech? Can Motorola get iPush shut down in other countries too?
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.

This is Global Thermonuclear War. Steve would not have started it unless he knew he could be the winner.
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Some here give significant weight to FOSSPatents views, so I'll post his opinion for those that wish to know what he thinks:
"I believe that Samsung's defense against the slide-to-unlock patent could very well also convince U.S. juries."



Foss is always right.

Apple's slide to unlock patent is not worth the paper it is printed on.
post #34 of 69
So this is really not "Motorola" it's Google doing their dirty work in the name of Motorola, right?
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post

Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their
"slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.

1) It is a gesture, ie. it has to be done as a swipe in one go, like go back from the now playing screen in the music app, not like changing home screen pages (1:1)
2) On the NNN1, it is a generic OS-wide gesture for "Yes", the opposite is "No", and you can just press the "Yes" or "No" keys on the device instead. Apple has nothing remotely like this.
3) Whilst not sliding your finger all the way across the NNN1 will not unlock, this is a deliberate limitation of its weird 9x9 grid of IR sensors (similar to the Surface bathtub), not because it has an "unlocking zone" like apple's patent (and let's not forget, implementation)
4) The NNN1 provides no visualisation of any movement, just a very feature-phone-esque padlock screen. It may seem superficially similar, but is much more similar to "Press Unlock then *" than it is to "Slide to Unlock".

</RANT>

The gesture they use is also a complete one-to-one copy of the gesture that was used on the early Palm products, which was itself a rip off of the same thing on the Newton so it all comes back to Apple again anyway.
post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed....

If you read the hundreds of *more* intelligent replies on that article which all basically take the author to task for distorting the facts, you might get a different view.

It's worth nothing that the article in question wasn't written by any of the long-time "core" Ars Technica staff either. It's a very unusual, very poorly written and researched article that takes a very biased position. I'm not alone in being very surprised that they even printed it.
post #37 of 69
I did not realize Moto owned "push"; how does this affect MS ActiveSync?

It seems likely this is a chess move as Germany is th targeted location; German laws seem very favorable to an injection first, investigation second approach. Apple likewise has used this approach.

In the meantime, this doesn't seem to preclude "push" in general, but only for iCloud email accounts; Exchange accounts should be fine, no?
post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If you read the hundreds of *more* intelligent replies on that article which all basically take the author to task for distorting the facts, you might get a different view.

It's worth nothing that the article in question wasn't written by any of the long-time "core" Ars Technica staff either. It's a very unusual, very poorly written and researched article that takes a very biased position. I'm not alone in being very surprised that they even printed it.

I try to avoid the comments section just as I do at Engadget. There are generally too many from fanboys on either side that can't see any middle so I concentrate more on the articles and ideas themselves. Since you mentioned the facts were distorted and called out in the comments, I did take a look. I just don't see what you're referring to.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...the-iphone.ars

Some were of the opinion that Apple wasn't given enough credit and instead of the Simon more should have been said about the Newton. There's also comments that Apple had people working on groundfloor tech at the same time others were too, tho often without any citation. That's really of no matter. I don't see anyone disputing that the iPhone was made possible by building on the efforts and ideas of a lot of people with no connection to Apple.

Not everyone will agree with the opinions in it, but the facts themselves don't appear to be disputed. If your biggest complaint is that it wasn't pro-Apple enough then that doesn't mean it was either inaccurate or biased would it?

1. What about the story stands out to you as "poorly written and researched"?
2. What in the story shows extreme bias?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Sad to say but I'm glad I don't live in Germany. My life practically depends on Push.


I'm glad I don't depend on Apple services. I use them but not as mission critical applications. I just can't depend on them. I had eWorld.com mail address which they canceled, then .mac which changed to .me. Now I'm supposed to change to iCloud, except wait, it might be terminated due to a patent violation. No thanks. I'll stick with my home grown Linux solutions for mission critical services.

As far as push is concerned getting mail promptly is no problem. It is the contacts and calendars that is the real pain in the ass to have the rug pulled out from under you.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #40 of 69
This stuff is getting so old. Everyone borrows, it is evident. Slide to unlock, yep Android "borrowed" it but what about iOS 5 "borrowing" Androids notification drop down? Who cares? These are all great features. Apple is not selling phones based on these small nuances, they sell because they have the best eco system on the planet. Android is not selling well because of these nuances, they sell because they are relatively inexpensive and highly customizable. Why can the consumer not win for a change?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iCloud
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iCloud › Motorola forces Apple to halt iCloud push services in Germany