or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins injunction against Motorola in Germany over photo gallery patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins injunction against Motorola in Germany over photo gallery patent

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Apple on Thursday earned a key victory in a German patent infringement suit against Motorola Mobility, earning the iPhone maker an injunction against a number of Motorola devices.

Judge Dr. Peter Guntz ruled that all Motorola devices implementing , entitled "Portable Electronic Device for Photo Management," are in violation, granting Apple an injunction against them. According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Apple could even choose to require Motorola to destroy any infringing products in its possession in Germany and recall infringing products from German retailers at its own expense.

The patent was originally awarded in September of 2010, and signs that the German court would side with Apple first surfaced in a hearing in December. It's likely that Apple's victory will require Motorola to modify its software and work around Apple's original ideas.

A similar turn of events occurred last August, when Apple won a preliminary injunction against Samsung in a Dutch court. Samsung also modified its software to avoid infringing on Apple's patent.

Though Apple's win isn't a "knockout blow" against Motorola, it could have a detrimental effect on the company's products as it modifies its software to avoid infringement.

"The fact of the matter is that Motorola will keep selling devices that will continue to have a photo gallery, though any workaround will definitely degrade the user experience," Mueller wrote. "As a Samsung customer affected by an update following the Dutch injunction, I have experienced this myself."

Friday will conclude a busy week in court for Apple, as the Mannheim Regional Curt is set to decide on a lawsuit against Samsung over Apple's "slide to unlock" patent, as well as a Samsung suit against Apple related to wireless 3G standards.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 39
Hooray!
post #3 of 39
Good.

Now how about that iCloud stuff?

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 #4 of 39
Much gnashing of teeth at Amphitheater Parkway.
post #5 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Good.

Now how about that iCloud stuff?

I imagine they could leverage some of these wins to deal with the iCloud issue. Of course, that's not the way SJ would play it, as he wanted to go "thermonuclear" on them.
post #6 of 39
I do not understand how zooming in on a picture can be patented. Is the patent the way to zoom in on a picture or the fact that you can zoom in on the picture?
post #7 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewGavin View Post

I do not understand how zooming in on a picture can be patented. Is the patent the way to zoom in on a picture or the fact that you can zoom in on the picture?

No, of course not. It's just the means by which it's done.

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 #8 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, of course not. It's just the means by which it's done.

Are we talking about pinch to zoom?
post #9 of 39
Google totally flushed 12 billion down the toilette, Motorola was the worst purchase ever.

This is delicious, I would be right out of control pissed off if I were a major shareholder.
post #10 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Are we talking about pinch to zoom?

I think we're talking about an implementation thereof and not the concept itself. I'm not sure, though. Patentese is, by design, difficult to read.

Oh, wait, no, it's gallery, so I think it's the means by which gallery navigation is undertaken, not pinch to zoom at all.

Here's the relevant part, I think.

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 #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post

Google totally flushed 12 billion down the toilette, Motorola was the worst purchase ever.

This is delicious, I would be right out of control pissed off if I were a major shareholder.

I honestly was really confused by google's purchase of motorola. I know they needed patents but dont you think there were some high up people looking at the reality of the situation and whether it actually benefited google or not? It seems like they made a rash decision after they lost out in the nortel patents which they claimed "they werent really trying to get anyway"....

I know a lot of people complain about all the patent related business on these sites, but I myself find it fascinating and cant wait to see how this all plays out....
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ko024 View Post

I honestly was really confused by google's purchase of motorola. I know they needed patents but dont you think there were some high up people looking at the reality of the situation and whether it actually benefited google or not? It seems like they made a rash decision after they lost out in the nortel patents which they claimed "they werent really trying to get anyway"....

I know a lot of people complain about all the patent related business on these sites, but I myself find it fascinating and cant wait to see how this all plays out....

There was more involved than just the patents.

- Google would get $3 B in accumulated losses, reducing the purchase price by that amount
- Access to the set top box market. Google was not particularly successful with the Google TV, so this gets them access to the entire TV market
- Other electronic devices. I could picture Android on your home phone or electronic home control devices and a small touch screen.

Granted, I don't think it was a great idea (with the main problem being that Google would be competing with its customers and customers would have every reason to find an alternative, including branching Android), but there are plausible explanations.
"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 #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ko024 View Post

I honestly was really confused by google's purchase of motorola. I know they needed patents but dont you think there were some high up people looking at the reality of the situation and whether it actually benefited google or not? It seems like they made a rash decision after they lost out in the nortel patents which they claimed "they werent really trying to get anyway"....

I know a lot of people complain about all the patent related business on these sites, but I myself find it fascinating and cant wait to see how this all plays out....

MMi hoodwinked Google into beliving that they could stop use MMI FRAND patents to extort Apple into cross licensing iphone Apple unique patents. Greatest scam since AOL bought Tme Warner with its inflated stock. Anyone wonder why MMi wanted cash rather than GOOG shares.
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There was more involved than just the patents.

- Google would get $3 B in accumulated losses, reducing the purchase price by that amount
- Access to the set top box market. Google was not particularly successful with the Google TV, so this gets them access to the entire TV market
- Other electronic devices. I could picture Android on your home phone or electronic home control devices and a small touch screen.

Granted, I don't think it was a great idea (with the main problem being that Google would be competing with its customers and customers would have every reason to find an alternative, including branching Android), but there are plausible explanations.

Google knew they couldn't get their hands on Motorola Solutions--the real meat of the Motorola family post break up.
post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I think we're talking about an implementation thereof and not the concept itself. I'm not sure, though. Patentese is, by design, difficult to read.

Oh, wait, no, it's gallery, so I think it's the means by which gallery navigation is undertaken, not pinch to zoom at all.

Here's the relevant part, I think.


What does that say?
post #16 of 39
If it's the same one that they used against Samsung, I think it's this:



The (U.S. version of the) patent application is 58 pages long. You can see it here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080052945
post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewGavin View Post

What does that say?

It's a little easier to understand if you read the article at Foss Patents. As I understand it, the relevant portion of the patent covers the action of zooming in on a photo and still being able to scroll to the next photo if you pull the image far enough. Foss said it only applies to the "zoomed in gallery" and not the "zoomed out gallery," so basically Motorola just has to take out the code that allows swiping to the next picture while zoomed in on the first picture.
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by pridon View Post

MMi hoodwinked Google into beliving that they could stop use MMI FRAND patents to extort Apple into cross licensing iphone Apple unique patents. Greatest scam since AOL bought Tme Warner with its inflated stock. Anyone wonder why MMi wanted cash rather than GOOG shares.

It wasn't just hoodwinking. It was extortion as well. MMI loudly and publicly threatened to sue Google using those same patent. The $12.5 billion was partly "protection money" against such a lawsuit.

Google fell for it, bought MMI in a panic without doing due diligence, and now they've got a $12.5 billion boat anchor.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #19 of 39
Google has already fixed this in the latest OS....
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

It's a little easier to understand if you read the article at Foss Patents. As I understand it, the relevant portion of the patent covers the action of zooming in on a photo and still being able to scroll to the next photo if you pull the image far enough. Foss said it only applies to the "zoomed in gallery" and not the "zoomed out gallery," so basically Motorola just has to take out the code that allows swiping to the next picture while zoomed in on the first picture.

Well yeah they can just take it out, but it makes it less user friendly and reduces the user experience. That's Apple's goal.
post #21 of 39
Quote:
Though Apple's win isn't a "knockout blow" against Motorola...

Wake me when there's a knockout blow against Motorola.

"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 #22 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

Google has already fixed this in the latest OS....

Shame that brand new Android devices don't run the latest OS, then, isn't it?

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 #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Wake me when there's a knockout blow against Motorola.

Wake me up when a Thermonuclear Bomb is used against Android.
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There was more involved than just the patents.

- Google would get $3 B in accumulated losses, reducing the purchase price by that amount
- Access to the set top box market. Google was not particularly successful with the Google TV, so this gets them access to the entire TV market
- Other electronic devices. I could picture Android on your home phone or electronic home control devices and a small touch screen.

Granted, I don't think it was a great idea (with the main problem being that Google would be competing with its customers and customers would have every reason to find an alternative, including branching Android), but there are plausible explanations.

Don't forget Motorola was also threatening to sue other Android OEM's, leaving Google no real choice.
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 #25 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Shame that brand new Android devices don't run the latest OS, then, isn't it?

It has already been fixed in previous versions as well.... They will need to be pushed out by the carriers however, to get around the ruling...
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

It has already been fixed in previous versions as well....

Then how could this suit possibly have been valid?

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 #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Then how could this suit possibly have been valid?

Because:

1. Apple can still sue for past infringement.
2. Fixing it in the latest OS isn't that helpful when the vast majority of Android devices on the market still run the older version.
"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 #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Wake me when there's a knockout blow against Motorola.

It seems like Apple is beating Android manufacturers with Nerf bats until they just holler "Uncle!" Same end result.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Don't forget Motorola was also threatening to sue other Android OEM's, leaving Google no real choice.

The whole story of why Google overpaid for Motorola may be complex, or Google just may have "dun goofed" and overpaid. Either way, they broke their piggy bank and gained a lot of stuff not central to their core business. The more Google defocuses the more they will miss their earnings goals.

Unlike Apple, HP and Google went shopping to cut a fat hog and ended up being the fat hog themselves. If the ITC would allow it, Google itself could be an Apple acquisition target. That way Apple can have the search and mapping programs they have wanted, and get the satisfaction of burying Andriod alive.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Then how could this suit possibly have been valid?

It has been fixed in current Google Android source for older platforms like Gingerbread. However this version has not been officially released by Motorola. So even though there is a work around in the latest source for that platform, it has not been applied to current stock....
post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

It has already been fixed in previous versions as well.... They will need to be pushed out by the carriers however, to get around the ruling...

As I recall, in the Samsung lawsuit last year the judge found that 3.0 Honeycomb was not infringing. (2.3 was) Now...which phones run 3.0 or 4.0? Not which phones technically could run 3 or 4...which ones on which carriers actually are running official releases?

edit: Android 2.3.6: the Pinch & Zoom feature is gone from the Gallery, but that feature was a precursor to the patent above
post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

As I recall, in the Samsung lawsuit last year the judge found that 3.0 Honeycomb was not infringing. (2.3 was) Now...which phones run 3.0 or 4.0? Not which phones technically could run 3 or 4...which ones on which carriers actually are running official releases?

edit: Android 2.3.6: the Pinch & Zoom feature is gone from the Gallery, but that feature was a precursor to the patent above

The only phones currently running 4.0.x are Nexus phones; most recent tablets are on ICS as well.

Pinch to zoom has not been removed from the gallery.
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Pinch to zoom has not been removed from the gallery.

That's not the patent, as far as we can tell. It's the ability to go to the next image in a gallery while being zoomed in on the current one.

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 #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That's not the patent, as far as we can tell. It's the ability to go to the next image in a gallery while being zoomed in on the current one.

if that's the case that explains why other tech sites have headlines like:

"APPLE WINS INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTOROLA DEVICES IN GERMANY!!!...Motrola sighs nonchalantly."
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I think we're talking about an implementation thereof and not the concept itself. I'm not sure, though. Patentese is, by design, difficult to read.

Oh, wait, no, it's gallery, so I think it's the means by which gallery navigation is undertaken, not pinch to zoom at all.

Here's the relevant part, I think.


If i understand what mueller said it is the way you can flip thru pictures by swiping your finger that is what this patent is.
The apple patent he is talking about on his own phone that was won against samsung is the bounce at the end of the list feature.
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Hooray!

Does this site really need more biased trolling (I don't care who it favors).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, of course not. It's just the means by which it's done.

the article doesn't explain much on that.
------------ end comment response----------


This article is once again trash . The link references recall or destruction, which is pretty excessive. It does not in any way suggest that they could force destruction of something that could be worked around in software. Some of you just get excited way too easily over idiotic corporate litigation (again speaking of all parties here.
post #37 of 39
Goodbye, Moto.
"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 #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That's not the patent, as far as we can tell. It's the ability to go to the next image in a gallery while being zoomed in on the current one.

I'm well aware of that. I explained the patent in my first post in the thread. I was responding to the poster who claimed that pinch to zoom had been removed as of 2.3.6.
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

I'm well aware of that. I explained the patent in my first post in the thread. I was responding to the poster who claimed that pinch to zoom had been removed as of 2.3.6.

Yes, I know what this dispute was about (method of displaying/navigating the photo gallery and the actions thereof).

I guess I mistook the issues with the 2.3.6 update disabling pinch to zoom for Nexus One phones as not a bug, but a planned event. Google (or Bing if you like): 2.3.6 pinch to zoom. Apparently it was a bug.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins injunction against Motorola in Germany over photo gallery patent