or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wins rubberbanding patent case against Motorola in Germany
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins rubberbanding patent case against Motorola in Germany

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
Apple has won a key patent case against Android in Germany against Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility, following a similar win against Samsung in the U.S.

Apple's '381 patent describes a rubber banding effect that indicates the end of a scrolling list or document has been hit by animating a stretchy, whimsical snap back effect.

In its case against Samsung, Apple's iOS head Scott Forstall testified that Steve Jobs was particularly annoyed to see other companies taking the invention and putting their name on it.

Forstall said the patent was "was just one of the things that Steve said [to Samsung], 'here's something we invented. Don't - don't copy it. Don't steal it.'"

After successfully winning a jury verdict finding infringement of the patent in its U.S. case against Samsung, Apple has now won a similar case against Motorola. Rather than a jury, the determination was made by a panel of German judges, according to a report by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

Mueller wrote that Presiding Judge Dr. Peter Guntz of the Munich I Regional Court had, earlier today, announced the determination of his panel that a variety of Motorola Mobility tablets and smartphones had all infringed upon Apple's European patent EP2126678, the equivalent of its US '831 patent.

This allows Apple enforce an injunction against the accused devices after posting a 25 million Euro bond. Apple can also post another 10 million Euro bond to "obligate Motorola to destroy any infringing material," or force Motorola to do a recall if it posts another 10 million Euro bond. Motorola will also have to pay Apple damages for past infringement.

The patent decision does not stop Motorola from building competing devices however, as the company is free to develop original smartphones and tablets that do not infringe Apple's design.

Google's own base version of Android has already introduced a "glow" indicator that serves the same purpose, although as Mueller notes, "the glow does not solve the problem that the rubber-banding patent solves: by the time a user notices the glow, he or she has already instinctively pressed harder because of the impression that the device is not responding."

Mueller has earlier stated that he uses a Samsung Note "phablet" phone that uses the "glow" effect, making him familiar with the difference between the two user interface concepts. He concluded, "this injunction spells further degradation of the Android user experience."

The rubber banding patent is the third infringement injunction Apple has won against Motorola in Germany, following a "slide to unlock" and photo gallery "flip to navigate" rulings.

Mueller points out that the impact of Apple's injunctions against Mototola in German is relatively minimal give Motorola's limited market share in the country.

However, he notes, "outcome of those cases shows that Android has far bigger patent infringement problems than any piece of computer software has ever had in the history of the industry, and this has many of Google's hardware partners profoundly concerned."

Mueller also noted that while patent cases are complex often confusing, "there can be no confusion about the fact that Google is losing the smartphone patent war in the United States and in Europe. That's simply a fact that no reasonable person can deny when looking at the decisions that came down on both sides of the Atlantic."

Google paid an astounding $12.5 billion to acquire the struggling Motorola Mobility this spring, ostensibly to obtain a patent portfolio capable of defending Android licensees across a series of infringement cases worldwide.

However, its new subsidiary has failed to deliver much patent firepower, forcing Google to wage a series of battles claiming infringement of standards essential patents, which offer at most limited damages related to the Fair Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms they have already been committed to as part of the standards process.

It appears Google's expensive acquisition was actually motivated by threats Motorola had made that involved both adopting Microsoft's Windows Phone platform and taking other Android licensees to court over a variety of patent claims.

Google's Android platform would be hurt far worse from patent infighting and the loss of its only significant, exclusive licensee than from cases asserted by Apple to force its various licensees to stop stealing its signature features, patented industrial design and trade dress.
post #2 of 42

BOOM. 

 

Another one. Against Google and their $12.5 billion white elephant. 

 

Just how many infringers *are* in the rest of this sloth-like industry?

post #3 of 42
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Against Google and their $12.5 billion white elephant.

 

"But Google said that Motorola is running as a separate company."

 

Whatever happened to "innovate, don't litigate", I wonder? lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #4 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

 "the glow does not solve the problem that the rubber-banding patent solves: by the time a user notices the glow, he or she has already instinctively pressed harder because of the impression that the device is not responding."

 

I think that most users would conclude that they've actually reached the end of the list, just like the scrolling bar on the right indicates. Not that this sort of talk surprises me from this guy.

iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
post #5 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youarewrong View Post

 

I think that most users would conclude that they've actually reached the end of the list, just like the scrolling bar on the right indicates. Not that this sort of talk surprises me from this guy.

 

Who cares about the unsurprising "talk" of "this guy" by which I believe you mean Herr Mueller, what's important is what the judge ruled and that an adverse finding against Google/Motorola/Android was the verdict.

 

As more and more of these cases are decided, Jobs' view of "Android as a stolen product" is vindicated.

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 #6 of 42

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

post #7 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

You over-estimate the intelligence of the average Android drone. Not that your sort of talk surprises me.

 

I think even the average Android drone is smart enough to understand how a scrolling bar works.

iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
post #8 of 42
What I don't understand is that 'rubber banding' is clearly a software patent, and as far as I know (or thought I knew) software patents are not recognised in Europe (indeed virtually anywhere outside the USA), so how can this be ruled on by a German court? Clearly it has been so I guess the software patent situation isn't as black and white as that...

Really this is the heart of the problem - software patents are the major issue, should they be recognised in the first place? It's one thing to penalise Samsung et al for copying the patented hardware features of Apple's stuff (which inclues the physical design and appearance) but what if the feature they copy isn't hardware at all but a skeumorphic software effect like rubber banding? Is that patentable? Should it be?
post #9 of 42
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post
I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

 

I wonder how the trolls will feel when Samsung is metaphorically punched in the face and literally called "idiots" in court for thinking they can double dip on FRAND licensing.


Originally Posted by dshan View Post
Really this is the heart of the problem - software patents are the major issue…
 

How?

And so if they can't patent, they'll copyright and then sue over said copyright.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshan View Post

What I don't understand is that 'rubber banding' is clearly a software patent, and as far as I know (or thought I knew) software patents are not recognised in Europe (indeed virtually anywhere outside the USA), so how can this be ruled on by a German court? Clearly it has been so I guess the software patent situation isn't as black and white as that...
Really this is the heart of the problem - software patents are the major issue, should they be recognised in the first place? It's one thing to penalise Samsung et al for copying the patented hardware features of Apple's stuff (which inclues the physical design and appearance) but what if the feature they copy isn't hardware at all but a skeumorphic software effect like rubber banding? Is that patentable? Should it be?

 

Get over yourself about software patents. It's particularly annoying when your intent is to hope they are shot down so people can freely borrow however they want any UI design paradigm, at will, free from infringement.

 

You wouldn't give two craps if someone on the Xorg project wrote the banding effect or that Apple licensed it freely under the APSL or BSD, but you are whining since they invested the personal talents to actually develop this idea of banding into their embedded menu scrolling, irrespective of the fact that it represents a forced dampening system in Mechanical Engineering via software, as if all of Mechanical Engineering and thus Physics implies Patent Free.

post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youarewrong View Post

I think that most users would conclude that they've actually reached the end of the list, just like the scrolling bar on the right indicates. Not that this sort of talk surprises me from this guy.

Good for Apple. Motorola probably has a work around ready but you're correct there isn't just a "glow" at the end. The icons also partially lift up but quickly go back down so as not to confuse the user that the device isn't responding.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #12 of 42
As much of a little feature in iOS, it just proves again that the Android OS is copying.
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

 

You just don't give up hoping, do you? Hopefully Samsung will eventually demonstrate a more Pavlovian response, even if their pain threshold is quite high.

post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I wonder how the trolls will feel when Samsung is metaphorically punched in the face and literally called "idiots" in court for thinking they can double dip on FRAND licensing.

 

How?

And so if they can't patent, they'll copyright and then sue over said copyright.

I am wondering how it Apple infringing on 4G/LTE patents?  They are using a Qualcomm chip, which covers what ever 4G/LTE licensing.  SInce the 4G/LTE patent case has been dealt with yet, that's all speculation.  I highly doubt they will ban the iPhone 5 due to 4G/LTE when they are using a standard chip set designed and mfg by Qualcomm.  

post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

First off, has there been a lawsuit filed? If so, what was the verdict?  Apple uses a Qualcomm voice/data chipset, so why should Apple be forced to pay 4G/LTE licensing if it is already covered in the chipset?  Because Apple isn't buying voice/data chips from Samsung?

post #16 of 42

When I'm using my ultra smooth and speedy iOS devices to browse around the web, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that non Apple users, Fandroids, Apple haters and other questionable people do not have the right to features such as rubberbanding on their devices. 

 

Come up with your own innovations, you talentless copycats, and whiny jealous people! Apple is not the world's R&D charity center, so that other losers can freely take and use what Apple has invented.

 

I also believe that most of the people who push the dumb meme "the patent system is broken, booohooo!", are really just mad that Apple is sitting on some really nice and innovative patents which they spent a long time developing, and these jealous losers and Apple haters would like those same features on their own inferior devices. Guess what, you don't deserve it!

post #17 of 42
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
I am wondering how it Apple infringing on 4G/LTE patents?  They are using a Qualcomm chip, which covers what ever 4G/LTE licensing.  SInce the 4G/LTE patent case has been dealt with yet, that's all speculation.  I highly doubt they will ban the iPhone 5 due to 4G/LTE when they are using a standard chip set designed and mfg by Qualcomm.  

 

I know, you know? I think it's hilarious that Samsung thinks they have any sort of case here.

 

I remember that Linksys filed a lawsuit against the iPhone the day it was announced. I figured since Samsung had actually previously announced they would sue Apple if the 6th iPhone had LTE that they would have done so already, too. I think it's strange that they haven't, if they're serious about this.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by drblank View Post
I am wondering how it Apple infringing on 4G/LTE patents?  They are using a Qualcomm chip, which covers what ever 4G/LTE licensing.  SInce the 4G/LTE patent case has been dealt with yet, that's all speculation.  I highly doubt they will ban the iPhone 5 due to 4G/LTE when they are using a standard chip set designed and mfg by Qualcomm.  

 

I know, you know? I think it's hilarious that Samsung thinks they have any sort of case here.

 

I remember that Linksys filed a lawsuit against the iPhone the day it was announced. I figured since Samsung had actually previously announced they would sue Apple if the 6th iPhone had LTE that they would have done so already, too. I think it's strange that they haven't, if they're serious about this.

 

If it was a idle threat then their credibility will suffer even more than it has. If they sue then FRAND patent abuse issues will likely bite them. They really seem to be backing themselves into a corner.

post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.


I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for that ban to happen. Remember Apple owns some LTE patents (via Nortel) as well and uses chip sets from Qualcomm that are already licensed.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

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

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

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

Reply
post #20 of 42

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 3:09pm
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

 

When will that happen?

 

Who needs standards anyway, different networks for different phones, so why don't you specify which LTE patents in particular?

 

If they aren't part of standards, they aren't needed, Apple has plenty of their own.

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 #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshan View Post

What I don't understand is that 'rubber banding' is clearly a software patent, and as far as I know (or thought I knew) software patents are not recognised in Europe (indeed virtually anywhere outside the USA), so how can this be ruled on by a German court? Clearly it has been so I guess the software patent situation isn't as black and white as that...
Really this is the heart of the problem - software patents are the major issue, should they be recognised in the first place? It's one thing to penalise Samsung et al for copying the patented hardware features of Apple's stuff (which inclues the physical design and appearance) but what if the feature they copy isn't hardware at all but a skeumorphic software effect like rubber banding? Is that patentable? Should it be?

 

You mean like this:-

 

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080924&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1&ND=4

 

Samsung is suing Apple over this patent in Germany because they claim they invented this :) and were awarded a European software patent for it.

 

:) I did a smiley on a portable device, f**k you Samsung and your stupid European software patent.

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 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post


I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for that ban to happen. Remember Apple owns some LTE patents (via Nortel) as well and uses chip sets from Qualcomm that are already licensed.

 

Apple also have other cross licensing agreements with Nokia and others.

 

If Samsung feels they don't have to contribute to standards or play by the rules, their methods should be stripped out, worked around and any standards non-compliant handsets should be banned by the FCC.

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 #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

But as we've seen, different jurisdictions produce wildly different outcomes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18895384

 

Appealable outcomes which are still undergoing that process.

 

News headline "Samsung found guilty of copying Apple".

 

Decree imposed by judge "(advertisement) Samsung didn't copy Apple".

 

The fact is obviously Samsung copied Apple and have been found guilty in several jurisdictions, why should Apple be forced to lie in an advertisement?

 

Isn't the Judge inciting a crime, under false and misleading advertising laws?

 

Will they need disclaimers?

 

Samsung only copied Apple in the US and Germany but not in the UK with the same products made in the same factories.

 

How is this possible?

 

Colin Birss is obviously a nutcase.

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 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

It's a shoe-in that it won't happen.

post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

I'll eat my shoe if that happens.

 

I'd be happy to serve you some crow if it doesn't. lol.gif

post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I'll eat my shoe if that happens.

 

I'd be happy to serve you some crow if it doesn't. lol.gif

 

You'd better take South Korea out of it, where some companies may use undue influence over the government to limit competition on their own turf.

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 #28 of 42
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
You'd better take South Korea out of it, where some companies may use undue influence over the government to limit competition on their own turf.


"OH LIKE APPLE DOESN'T BUY JUDGES AND JURIES. MISTRIAL!" lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.

I guarantee you that will never happen. The LTE patents are standards-essential. And by the way, Apple has also contributed patents to the LTE standard, though not as many as Samsung has. What will happen (if Samsung goes ahead and tries to ban the iPhone over LTE) is that Europe and the U.S. will look further into standards-essential patent abuse by Samsung, which could lead to sanctions. The patents that Apple is suing over are not standards-essential, which gives Apple the right to ask for import bans.

post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Appealable outcomes which are still undergoing that process.

 

News headline "Samsung found guilty of copying Apple".

 

Decree imposed by judge "(advertisement) Samsung didn't copy Apple".

 

The fact is obviously Samsung copied Apple and have been found guilty in several jurisdictions, why should Apple be forced to lie in an advertisement?

 

Isn't the Judge inciting a crime, under false and misleading advertising laws?

 

Will they need disclaimers?

 

Samsung only copied Apple in the US and Germany but not in the UK with the same products made in the same factories.

 

How is this possible?

 

Colin Birss is obviously a nutcase.

That ruling was kind of funny in a bizarre way - the judge's reasoning was that nobody would mistake a Samsung phone for an iPhone because the Samsung phone isn't cool, like the iPhone is. Therefore, Samsung didn't copy.


Edited by elroth - 9/13/12 at 10:30pm
post #31 of 42
I'm a bit on the fence about patents. There's a fine line between drawing from the creative pool and outright copying. We need standards, especially on the hardware side, but when it comes to user experience and how features are implemented, I think protection is deserved. For the most part, Apple is trying to protect its creative ideas whereas Samsung is going after hardware. LTE patents versus rubber-banding are two completely different issues. LTE benefits us all. Everyone, whatever platform he or she chooses, benefits from a standard.

But rubber-banding is something creative. Who knows how long Apple designers toiled over this very simple thing. They improved (in my opinion) upon something we all take for granted, scrolling through a list. This is their creative expression and it happens to resonate with a lot of people. Now why should someone else simply be able to copy it? Samsung feels that it can raid Apple's brain trust whenever it pleases and that's wrong. All of us - iOS, Android, BB, Windows - sharing common hardware standards and being able to interact with one another seamlessly is a very different issue in my opinion. Yes, hardware inventors should be compensated too, but it's not the same thing as protecting the user experience.

What I find particularly disturbing about Apple vs Samsung is Samsung's shocking disrespect towards its largest customer. It's pretty clear that Apple attempted to diffuse a potential situation early on by warning Samsung not to steal Apple's creative expression. And Samsung basically turned around and said f#*% you to its biggest customer.
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

I guarantee you that will never happen. The LTE patents are standards-essential.

wrong...
post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


wrong...


I've heard other people elsewhere similarly claim that LTE patents are not SEP or encumbered with FRAND, but none of them offer any evidence or articles or anything to support.  Care to be the first rational dissenter?

post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


wrong...

So if they are not part of a standard, a different implementation can become the standard and Samsung's phones can be banned by the FCC and other bodies around the world, for non-compliance.

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 #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So if they are not part of a standard, a different implementation can become the standard and Samsung's phones can be banned by the FCC and other bodies around the world, for non-compliance.

Obviously a "standard" for all to follow hasn't been set yet hence different pools of patents. Until LTE networks become prevalent throughout the world there won't be one standard.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

That ruling was kind of funny in a bizarre way - the judge's reasoning was that nobody would mistake a Samsung phone for an iPhone because the Samsung phone isn't cool, like the iPhone is. Therefore, Samsung didn't copy.

It will be interesting to see what happens to that one on appeal. I'm not familiar enough with UK law to want to speculate, but it certainly looked like a strange decision so the appeal will be interesting.
"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 #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbyx View Post


But rubber-banding is something creative. Who knows how long Apple designers toiled over this very simple thing. They improved (in my opinion) upon something we all take for granted, scrolling through a list. This is their creative expression and it happens to resonate with a lot of people. 

 

 

It's a KEY element in the User Experience. All these little things add up. They add up to iOS devices ranking #1 in customer satisfaction for nearly every year of their existence. 

post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I am wondering how it Apple infringing on 4G/LTE patents?  They are using a Qualcomm chip, which covers what ever 4G/LTE licensing.  SInce the 4G/LTE patent case has been dealt with yet, that's all speculation.  I highly doubt they will ban the iPhone 5 due to 4G/LTE when they are using a standard chip set designed and mfg by Qualcomm.  

 

 I don't think the patent exhaustion applies here.  My understanding is that Qualcomm's customers are not covered under the current law. Qualcomm and Samsung likewise signed an agreement not to go after their customers years back, but Samsung ended that agreement when Apple filed lawsuits against Samsung last year.

 

Well, if Samsung's patents are valid, why not?  Apple successfully banned Samsung's products in Germany.  I guess Samsung could *copy* Apple's legal strategy and file lawsuits in Dusseldorf, Germany and Eastern District of Texas for favorable outcome.

post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

You mean like this:-

 

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080924&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1&ND=4

 

Samsung is suing Apple over this patent in Germany because they claim they invented this :) and were awarded a European software patent for it.

 

:) I did a smiley on a portable device, f**k you Samsung and your stupid European software patent.

Not to take Samsung's side on this, but you have to remember that Asian (and other non-Roman) keyboards may not have the same input characteristics that our input has. A quick look at the patent seems to indicate that Samsung may be talking about a key input method to quickly type the equivalent with a non-Roman input device. This may have implications for release in non-English countries (including the huge Chinese market or Cyrillic countries) without any impact on the US.

post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Obviously a "standard" for all to follow hasn't been set yet hence different pools of patents. Until LTE networks become prevalent throughout the world there won't be one standard.

Well, to this point, LTE isn't even an agreed upon standard by all countries around the world. Remember the flack over the iPad 3 being advertised as LTE? If they can't even agree on the essential parts of the standard, it leaves implementation wide open for interpretation which opens up all kinds of opportunities for regional patent abuse.

 

We live under a delusion that the global communications sphere is one united platform (especially in the US), but governments fight over spectrum all the time. That is what opens up the opportunity for individual governments to rule differently on similar issues.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wins rubberbanding patent case against Motorola in Germany