or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Motorola's seven-patent ITC complaint against Apple detailed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola's seven-patent ITC complaint against Apple detailed

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
In Motorola's second U.S. International Trade Commission complaint against Apple, the company asserts a number of products infringe on seven owned patents pertaining to wireless technologies like location-based reminders, multimedia applications and managing messages and content.

The ITC on Monday made available the complaint from Google-owned Motorola, originally filed on Friday, revealing the exact patents upon which Apple is accused of infringing. In the claim, a number of Apple iDevices are named, including the iPod touch, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad 2 and the third-generation iPad. A number of Apple's Mac OS products are also said to infringe on wireless communication technologies and include the Mac pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air.

Samsung counsel notes:

Each of the Accused Products meets each and every limitation of at least one claim of one or more of the Asserted patents. The Accused Products include, but are not limited to, all versions of the above-reference products, as well as certain software and services that are distributed as components of these devices. These products, however, are merely illustrative of the types and classes of infringing products that [Apple] manufactures and imports into the United States, sell for importation into the United States, and/or sells within the United States after importation in violation of Section 337.


It should be noted that Motorola is once again being represented by Quinn Emanuel, the same law firm responsible for Samsung's defense in the high-profile Apple v. Samsung patent trial currently in its final stages in California.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, in addition to the ITC case, Motorola has filed a companion suit asserting the same seven patents in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

The asserted patents (descriptions from Motorola complaint):
  1. U.S. Patent No. 5,883,580 for "Geographic-Temporal Significant Messaging"

    Non-Technical Description of the '580 Patent
    The '580 Patent generally relates to messaging devices that process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time. The patend discloses, inter alia, a method and apparatus for receiving messages having a relevency status (e.g., a location identifier) and processing the messages when the relevancy status changes.

    The '580 patent has not been the subject of previous domestic or foreign litigation.
  2. U.S. Patent No. 5,922,047 for "Apparatus, Method And System for Multimeda Control And Communication"

    Non-Technical Description of the '047 Patent
    The '047 Patent generally relates to communications and control systems for multimedia. In particular, the '047 Patent discloses, inter alia, an apparatus and method for providing control functions over multiple and diverse media applications, preferably operating at more than one designated node or location.

    The ''047 patent has not been the subject of previous domestic or foreign litigation.
  3. U.S. Patent No. 6,425,002 for "Apparatus and Method for Handling Dispatchin Messages for Various Applications of a Communication Device"

    Non-Technical Description of the '002 Patent
    The '002 Patent generally relates to communications devices that ensure applications installed therein only receive messages that are of interest. The patent discloses, inter alia, a message manager program for accepting and dispatching messages, application program(s) for handling and presenting messages, and message client program(s) that receive messages from the message manager program and provides them to the application program.

    The '002 patent has not been the subject of previous domestic or foreign litigation.
  4. U.S. Patent No. 6,493,673 for a "Markup Language For Interactive Services And Methods Thereof"

    Non-Technical Description of the ''673 Patent
    The '673 Patent generally relates to communications devices that are capable of providing interactive services. The patent discloses, inter alia, providing [a] prompt element including an announcement to be read to a user, and an input element that allows an audible user in put to be converted into a text string.

    The '673 patent has not been the subject of previous domestic or foreign litigation.
  5. U.S. Patent No. 6,983,370 for a "System for Providing Continuity Between Messaging Clients And Method Therefor"

    Non-Technical Description of the '370 Patent
    The '370 Patent generally relates to communications systems incorporating capabilities to provide continuity between messaging clients. More specifically, the '370 Patent relates to the ability to sync the messaging capabilities of multiple devices.

    On or about November 10, 2010, Motorola Mobility filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida based on, inter alia, the alleged infringement of the '370 patent by Microsoft Corporation in the Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation. That case was later transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on or about August 25, 2011 and is pending before that court. There has been no foreign litigation involving the '370 patent.
  6. U.S. Patent No. 7,007,064 for "Method And Apparatus For Obtaining And Managing Wirelessly Communicated Content"

    Non-Technical Description of the '064 Patent
    The '064 Patent generally relates to wireless communications systems for providing content to wireless communication devices. In particular, the '064 Patent discloses, inter alia, an apparatus and method for obtaining and managing wirelessly communicated content.

    The '064 patent has not been the subject of previous domestic or foreign litigation.
  7. U.S. Patent No. 7,383,983 for a "System And Method for Managing Content Between Devices In Various Domains"

    Non-Technical Description of the '983 Patent
    The '983 Patent generally relates to managing content between devices in various domains and, more particularly, to a system and method for pausing content in one device and resuming playback of the content in another device that may be in a different domain.

    The '983 patent has not been the subject of previous domestic or foreign litigation.

Motorola '370 Patent
Figure from Motorola's '370 patent; the only property asserted against Apple which has been part of previous litigation.
Source: USPTO


According to Mueller, it makes sense for Motorola to assert original properties in the suit given the ITC threw out five patents Google loaned HTC to fight Apple in a separate case. The FRAND law expert points out, however, the patents-in-suit may not be the strongest in Motorola's stable, as the company chose a number of others over the current seven in previous lawsuits.



Mueller said the ITC will "undoubtedly" open an investigation into the matter within the next month, while an investigation is likely to start in the first half of 2014.
post #2 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

U.S. Patent No. 6,493,673 for a "Markup Language For Interactive Services And Methods Thereof"
Non-Technical Description of the ''673 Patent
The '673 Patent generally relates to communications devices that are capable of providing interactive services. The patent discloses, inter alia, providing [a] prompt element including an announcement to be read to a user, and an input element that allows an audible user in put to be converted into a text string.
The '673 patent has not been the subject of previous domestic or foreign litigation.

Those are some fairly significant claims. eek.gif

 

#673 seems like it is taking aim directly at Siri.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
Mueller said the ITC will "undoubtedly" open an investigation into the matter within the next month, while an investigation is likely to start in the first half of 2014.

 

EDIT: I'm glad the investigation is likely to start in the first half of 2014 after they open the investigation next month?! confused.gif


Edited by mstone - 8/20/12 at 10:38pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #3 of 67

What goes around comes around, and Apple certainly had it coming.  I hope there's no injunction because I don't think that is ever a suitable remedy.

post #4 of 67
Originally Posted by wake finance View Post
…Apple certainly had it coming.

 

Yeah, how dare they legally protect their intellectual property.

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 #5 of 67

So.. this is how Google thinks they can get back at Apple?!

post #6 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

So.. this is how Google thinks they can get back at Apple?!

I doubt getting back at is the ultimate goal...I'm sure a licensing agreement is the plan, not money, not injunctions.

A sort of tentative peace.
post #7 of 67

I hope Google wins and get most of Apple products ban from the US. Karma is a b. I wonder how Apple will defend themselves?

 

How does it feel having it turn against you now Apple?!
 

post #8 of 67

Wow. You'd think this turned into an Android fan site. They seem to be registering just to comment.

post #9 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post

I hope Google wins and get most of Apple products ban from the US. Karma is a b. I wonder how Apple will defend themselves?

How does it feel having it turn against you now Apple?!

 

shut up.
post #10 of 67
Its clear proof of a totally corrupt patent system.
The patents in question should never have been issued.

J.
post #11 of 67

If you go "thermonuclear" then this is the radioactive fallouts. It's just too overly simplistic on Apple's or SJ's part to use that terminology. They should know better of what that terminology entails. In the cold war, the race to build nuclear bombs that can go ballistic for far away places and create far bigger destructions than Hiroshima is just one of the steps to ensure the world of nuclear deterrent, i.e. going "thermonuclear" will only mean an ultimate destruction for all sides. So, neither NATO nor Warsaw Pact would want to go that route. Unless, of course, this is what SJ wanted in the first place, destroying Apple and its competitors at the same time. I really doubt if that's what SJ and Apple want. 

 

If you look at the trials, some of Apple's patents turn out to be standing on shaky ground anyway, i.e. rectangle with rounded corners, pinch to zoom and rubber band effect. Apple in some cases improve in things it borrows heavily from its present or future competitors. IPod is  great improvements of the then plain and somewhat bland MP3/mobile music player. IPad is also a product offering something better than its counterparts. It is also the same with Iphone. Apple's motto should be that of "RENOVATION" instead of the word "INNOVATION". Who cares how competitors label you anyway as long as you make good products,  you make "good" [in Apple's case "super excellent"] money and you make people want to use your products in droves.

 

What Apple is doing right now by going "thermonuclear" instead is to disturb technological powerhouses of the past and present, i.e. Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and others. The war on 4G LTE technology will be Apple's losing battle even with Qualcomm on its side while being marginally aided by the almost negligible Nortel's 4G LTE patents portfolio acquisition. Although, some analyst quickly point out that it is also probable that the current Apple's lawsuits are nothing more than Apple's way to gain some leverages from its partners/competitors from the future skirmishes in 4G LTE technology where Apple is in an extremely weak position. In other words, Apple must win big here, so that in the future war it will lose less or not at all [since its competitors prefer not to go to war at all and prefer to license their patents instead].

 

And, who knows, with its gazillion patents in its trove, Apple could also awaken the real giant of innovation and technology, IBM. Apple should be extra careful, if the likes of IBM suddenly awakens and realizes that parts of its patents are being infringed upon by Apple, as we all know the majority of technological advancements in the past 50 or so years will have some IBM footprints in it,  Apple will be in for some very serious radioactive fallouts. To inadvertently awaken IBM and its patent lawyers from their collective slumber will be the worst case scenario and a complete nightmare indeed. 


Edited by mcrs - 8/20/12 at 10:58pm
post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Yeah, how dare they legally protect their intellectual property.

 

Are you talking about Apple or Motorola?

 

 

This entire patent war is a waste. All that happens in a thermonuclear war is it forces all sides to get their own bombs and then everyone dies. No one wins.

post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

Its clear proof of a totally corrupt patent system.
The patents in question should never have been issued.
J.

Why do you say that? The one I noted (673) was issued in the year 2000. Apple was not at all in the phone scene at that time. As I recall Motorola had some unique and functional voice recognition software on their phones at the time. Why shouldn't they patent it?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


shut up.

 


Well, no.. US Constitution Bill of Rights state that I have freedom of speech. I'll say what ever I want if it does not violate the terms, rules and condition of this forum but this will probably be my last post.

 

If you look at some of Apple's really ridicules patent such as: rectangle with rounded corners, swipe to unlock, tried to patent multi-touch which was already invented by Diamond Touch and

 

comparing to Google's patents you'll see that Apple isn't all that great. I seriously don't get why Apple Fans keep backing up Apple even if they make a ridicules lawsuit against other company.

post #15 of 67
Excellent,

Now just be a man of your words and never post again on this forum...

Thank you.

Ps: swipe to unlock is probably the most natural way to unlock a touch device and yes you did not invent it, yes no other competitor bothered to invent it before Apple, and yes Apple is entitled to protect this idea through the patent system.
post #16 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post

 


Well, no.. US Constitution Bill of Rights state that I have freedom of speech. I'll say what ever I want if it does not violate the terms, rules and condition of this forum but this will probably be my last post.

 

If you look at some of Apple's really ridicules patent such as: rectangle with rounded corners, swipe to unlock, tried to patent multi-touch which was already invented by Diamond Touch and

 

comparing to Google's patents you'll see that Apple isn't all that great. I seriously don't get why Apple Fans keep backing up Apple even if they make a ridicules lawsuit against other company.

"Freedom of speech"? What a cry baby. Please don't go, we need your informed opinion to counter our fanaticism.

 

I think it's hilarious that gaggle overpaid 12 billion for a failing company just so they could use the patents to sue Apple in order to defend intellectual property that they had already violated. But as we can see from thier inordinate spending on political lobbying, integrity is no longer their strong point. This is just the tip of the iceberg for Apple. Apple is being granted new patents on a regular basis. Apple is the innovator. Apple changed the industry. Apple deserves to protect the ideas that everyone else is drafting off of. I hope samsung goes down in flames. "Shameless" is the perfect term for them. They even copied the freakin' charging adaptors.*

 

*It really is unfortunate, as Koreans typically are known for being good designers, at least in my experience.

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #17 of 67
Google bought Motorola to prevent them from suing fellow Android makers, turn out that the patents Motorola used to extort every smartphone makers are Pager patents? Google truly promote innovation. 😈👺
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Those are some fairly significant claims. eek.gif

 

#673 seems like it is taking aim directly at Siri.

 

 

After reading the patent a bit, it certainly does seem that way.

 

 

Originally Posted by USPTO View Post

At block 156, the electronic network waits for an input or command from the user that corresponds to a destination of the information source desired by the user. The input can be audio commands (i.e., speech) or DTMF tones. After the electronic network receives the input from the user, the electronic network establishes a connection or a link to the information source at block 158. The electronic network preferably determines an electronic address of the information source (i.e., URL, a URN, an IP address, or an electronic mail address) based upon the inputs from the user (i.e., speech or DTMF tones). The electronic address can be retrieved from a database using a look-up operation based upon at least a portion of the input. 

At block 160, the electronic network retrieves at least a portion of the information from the destination of the information source at block 160. The electronic network processes the information and then provides an output to the user based upon the retrieved information at block 162. The output can include a speech communication, textual information, and/or graphical information. For example, the electronic network can provide a speech communication using speech-to-text technology or human recorded speech. The process then proceeds to block 164 or block 154 as described above. It will be recognized that the above described method can be carried out by a computer. 

 

 

If this patent is deemed valid, it could pose serious problems for Siri. Compared to some of the other patents in question, it almost makes it look like Apple brought fission to a fusion gun show. 

post #19 of 67

I stopped reading here:

 

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5883580.html

 

Quote:
The '580 Patent generally relates to messaging devices that process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time

 

Special Relativity and General Relativity have long standing and understanding of Spacetime. Without it we don't have Geosynchronous orbiting Satellites, etc., etc.

 

 

Quote:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates in general to selective call messaging devices and more specifically to messaging devices that process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time.

 

Define them. Oh that's right! You did! Your focus was specific in your background and it was solely on PAGERS.


Edited by mdriftmeyer - 8/21/12 at 12:03am
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post



Well, no.. US Constitution Bill of Rights state that I have freedom of speech. I'll say what ever I want if it does not violate the terms, rules and condition of this forum but this will probably be my last post.

If you look at some of Apple's really ridicules patent such as: rectangle with rounded corners, swipe to unlock, tried to patent multi-touch which was already invented by Diamond Touch and

comparing to Google's patents you'll see that Apple isn't all that great. I seriously don't get why Apple Fans keep backing up Apple even if they make a ridicules lawsuit against other company.

Dude, I'm not saying I completely disagree with you...but your candor does nothing to further discussion...

And yes...the same bill of rights that allows you to say whatever you want as wantonly as possible allows me the same freedoms.
post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I stopped reading here:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5883580.html


Special Relativity and General Relativity have long standing and understanding of Spacetime. Without it we don't have Geosynchronous orbiting Satellites, etc., etc.



Define them. Oh that's right! You did! Your focus was specific in your background and it was solely on PAGERS.

"It's about the claims made"
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post

I hope Google wins and get most of Apple products ban from the US. Karma is a b. I wonder how Apple will defend themselves?

 

How does it feel having it turn against you now Apple?!
 

 

Probably in the same way that they have been defending themselves against Motorola's attacks ever since MOTOROLA STARTED THIS BY SUING APPLE FIRST.

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 #23 of 67

So when Google Motorola can't innovate, they litigate and yet another case of Google mimicking Apple (i.e. the thermonuclear patent litigation strategy)    

post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Yeah, how dare they legally protect their intellectual property.

 

Just when I wonder if Tallest Skil's pre-emptive postings at the beginning of a thread are a little excessive, we have a fresh bunch of trolls taking a piss here. And I'm quoting TS rather than the poster he quoted since I don't want to mess up people's block lists.

 

I've decided I'd rather read TS posts in the beginning. That at least stops these newbie trolls and only the veterens come out to show us how wrong we are.

post #25 of 67

Hmmm, that's interesting. 

 

I thought Apple were the 'innovator for the world?'

 

That's what Cook said right? Someone correct me if i'm wrong

post #26 of 67
Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post
I hope Google wins and get most of Apple products ban from the US. Karma is a b. I wonder how Apple will defend themselves?

 

How does it feel having it turn against you now Apple?!

Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post

…Apple's really ridicules patent such as: rectangle with rounded corners, swipe to unlock, tried to patent multi-touch which was already invented by Diamond Touch and…

 

Wow, the new trolls are dumb, aren't they? I mean, absolutely no thought put into it. It's like they're Googling for "anti-Apple arguments" and just setting the date between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010.

 

What's next, going back to comments that pretend Microsoft saved Apple with their $150 million investment? lol.gif

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 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wow, the new trolls are dumb, aren't they? I mean, absolutely no thought put into it. It's like they're Googling for "anti-Apple arguments" and just setting the date between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010.

What's next, going back to comments that pretend Microsoft saved Apple with their $150 million investment? lol.gif

No, I think the official list puts that one just after "Apple stole the GUI from Xerox".
"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 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Wow, the new trolls are dumb, aren't they? I mean, absolutely no thought put into it. It's like they're Googling for "anti-Apple arguments" and just setting the date between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010.

 

What's next, going back to comments that pretend Microsoft saved Apple with their $150 million investment? lol.gif

LOL! you know it!

 

I laughed at your comment almost as hard as when i laughed when Tim Cook claimed Apple innovates and everyone else copies. Then brings out a phone with 4G TWO YEARS LATER THAN EVERYONE ELSE lol.giflol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

 

But your comment was pretty funny too, i ROFL'd, LOL! Good one! You crack me up. 

You know what, i bet they BINGED IT!!! HAHAA. Oh man, Good stuff Skil. 

post #29 of 67
Of all the patents, the only one that seems remotely valid is '580, as the others are either way too obvious or way too ambiguous. That said, I hope all of these companies take their patent litigation to the very end and get each other's devices banned. It is also interesting to see Google ask for so many devices to be banned based on a few patents while at the same time trying to argue that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus shouldn't be banned precisely on the same grounds.
post #30 of 67
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post
LOL! you know it!

 

I laughed at your comment almost as hard as when i laughed when Tim Cook claimed Apple innovates and everyone else copies. Then brings out a phone with 4G TWO YEARS LATER THAN EVERYONE ELSE lol.giflol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

 

But your comment was pretty funny too, i ROFL'd, LOL! Good one! You crack me up. 

You know what, i bet they BINGED IT!!! HAHAA. Oh man, Good stuff Skil. 

 

You're on ludicrously thin ice as it is. Do you really want to have to create a sleepy4 (which will be banned immediately)?

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 #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You're on ludicrously thin ice as it is. Do you really want to have to create a sleepy4 (which will be banned immediately)?

What did I do? I just said your joke was funny? Geeeshhh, can't take a compliment. 

 

You can dish it, but you sure can't take it, lol. 

 

By the way, it started at sleepy3. There is no connection to sleepy1 through 2. 

post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post

I hope Google wins and get most of Apple products ban from the US. Karma is a b. I wonder how Apple will defend themselves?

 

How does it feel having it turn against you now Apple?!
 

An injunction is appropriate when consumer confusion is at stake. It makes sense because Apple claims (whether or not you agree) that Samsung's product on the market is causing them to lose sales due to confusion. Apple posts a bond in case they lose. If Apple loses, they pay to make up lost sales to Samsung.

 

Motorola is not claiming consumer confusion. So why, in the heck would you think it's appropriate for Google should get an injunction against Apple's products. They're not losing sales of their own products due to consumer confusion. If Motorola wins, Apple will pay them licensing fees retroactively.

 

This isn't junior high. Google will not get an injunction against Apple just because Apple got an injunction against an Android maker. There are actual reasons for injunctions.

post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

An injunction is appropriate when consumer confusion is at stake. It makes sense because Apple claims (whether or not you agree) that Samsung's product on the market is causing them to lose sales due to confusion. Apple posts a bond in case they lose. If Apple loses, they pay to make up lost sales to Samsung.

 

Motorola is not claiming consumer confusion. So why, in the heck would you think it's appropriate for Google should get an injunction against Apple's products. They're not losing sales of their own products due to consumer confusion. If Motorola wins, Apple will pay them licensing fees retroactively.

 

This isn't junior high. Google will not get an injunction against Apple just because Apple got an injunction against an Android maker. There are actual reasons for injunctions.

 

"Consumer confusion" is hardly a requirement for an injunction. Do you have any sources to back up this claim?

post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

An injunction is appropriate when consumer confusion is at stake. It makes sense because Apple claims (whether or not you agree) that Samsung's product on the market is causing them to lose sales due to confusion. Apple posts a bond in case they lose. If Apple loses, they pay to make up lost sales to Samsung.

Motorola is not claiming consumer confusion. So why, in the heck would you think it's appropriate for Google should get an injunction against Apple's products. They're not losing sales of their own products due to consumer confusion. If Motorola wins, Apple will pay them licensing fees retroactively.

This isn't junior high. Google will not get an injunction against Apple just because Apple got an injunction against an Android maker. There are actual reasons for injunctions.

That argument just doesn't make sense, if Apple can lose sales to confusion, then it is possible that sales could be lost due to features included in in iPhones etc which are allegedly in breach of these patents. After all Siri was a major selling point, an injunction should be judged on the likely hood of upholding the claims, but I don't know what the criteria are.

J
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Why do you say that? The one I noted (673) was issued in the year 2000. Apple was not at all in the phone scene at that time. As I recall Motorola had some unique and functional voice recognition software on their phones at the time. Why shouldn't they patent it?

I has nothing to do with the time the 'patent' is issued.
Software patents should never be allowed.
They stifle innovation and prevent independent software makers from writing great software.
With software patents you can only write software if you are protected by a large corporation.
Software - and thereby the investment in it - is already protected by copyright and that is sufficient.
I am not at all impressed from what I read from the patent you mention.

J.
post #36 of 67
Quote:

Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post
 

 

"Freedom of speech"? What a cry baby. Please don't go, we need your informed opinion to counter our fanaticism.

 

 

Yeah, so what of it? Why don't you try to attack my argument instead of me? What you just did is called Ad Hominem, an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


Dude, I'm not saying I completely disagree with you...but your candor does nothing to further discussion...
And yes...the same bill of rights that allows you to say whatever you want as wantonly as possible allows me the same freedoms.

 

=D If you want to debate I'm up for it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

So when Google Motorola can't innovate, they litigate and yet another case of Google mimicking Apple (i.e. the thermonuclear patent litigation strategy)    

 

Motorola is the first one to create wireless communication device called Cell Phone. They were also the first to innovate their first large phone into a more portable device.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Wow, the new trolls are dumb, aren't they? I mean, absolutely no thought put into it. It's like they're Googling for "anti-Apple arguments" and just setting the date between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010.

 

What's next, going back to comments that pretend Microsoft saved Apple with their $150 million investment? lol.gif

 

Your the same as PatchyThePirate. Since your a GM, I'm going to say.... No Comment

 

 

P.S. I had to come back since I find it very entertaining. Call me hypocrite if you want.

post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Lustre View Post



Well, no.. US Constitution Bill of Rights state that I have freedom of speech. I'll say what ever I want if it does not violate the terms, rules and condition of this forum but this will probably be my last post.

If you look at some of Apple's really ridicules patent such as: rectangle with rounded corners, swipe to unlock, tried to patent multi-touch which was already invented by Diamond Touch and

comparing to Google's patents you'll see that Apple isn't all that great. I seriously don't get why Apple Fans keep backing up Apple even if they make a ridicules lawsuit against other company.

The bill of rights says you have freedom of speech. It does not grant you that right to come on to private property (eg a forum) and do whatever pleases you. If the moderators decide to delete posts that they disagree with, that's with their rights too.

That said, most forums I've been to that weren't populated only by trolls, don't moderate things until someone crosses a legal line, and at that point it's more dangerous to allow the activity to continue. The android fans are more than welcome to come and defend their side of a debate, but do note the forum is part of "Apple Insider" and is not exactly a neutral playground. Are there even notable android fan sites?
post #38 of 67
Originally Posted by Misa View Post
Are there even notable android fan sites?

 

A few. And you'll notice there are zero Apple trolls on any of them. And barely any posts that say good things about Apple at all.

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 #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

Been reading about this over at Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820182004477
Wow is all I have to say at this point. It looks like Google has revealed their hand. I'm eager to see how Apple responds.

I have to laugh, though.
Quote:
This filing is by Quinn Emanuel, the same law firm that we've been watching represent Samsung against Apple in California. The mighty John Quinn's law firm, in other words

Is that the same "mighty" firm that has been sanctioned 4 times by the judge in just one trial and who keeps violating direct judicial orders? And the one who managed their time so badly that Apple had hours to present the final evidence in the case without any rebuttal from Samsung? And the one where they voluntarily provided the evidence Apple needed to demonstrate that consumers were being confused?

I'm not at all impressed with this "mighty" law firm.

Not to mention, of course that their facts are all wrong. They claim that Apple started this by going thermonuclear on Google. In reality, Apple has NEVER filed suit against Google. Even the Motorola suits were started by Motorola, not Apple.

So much for 'don't be evil'.
"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 #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not to mention, of course that their facts are all wrong. They claim that Apple started this by going thermonuclear on Google. In reality, Apple has NEVER filed suit against Google. Even the Motorola suits were started by Motorola, not Apple.
So much for 'don't be evil'.

 

Yeah, Apple has never filed suit against Google. Even you know that they're trying to rack up wins prior to engaging Google so they have something to show in court.

 

Apple started the patent wars. This is their fault. The patent system is a joke, a broken mess at best, and this is what comes of it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Motorola's seven-patent ITC complaint against Apple detailed