or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google calls Apple 'unwilling licensee' in bid for injunction over FRAND patent violations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google calls Apple 'unwilling licensee' in bid for injunction over FRAND patent violations

post #1 of 76
Thread Starter 
Google and Motorola on Thursday entered an initial filing with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals over the dismissal of a patent suit against Apple, which saw a circuit court judge toss arguments from both parties in 2011.

The filing comes four months after Apple issued its own such document with the CAFC in November, with Google now able to outline its appeal of Judge Richard A. Posner's June 2012 ruling and respond to the Cupertino company's brief.

CAFC Logo


As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Google is appealing the FRAND aspects of Judge Posner's decision to toss the case in an attempt to win injunctive relief against certain Apple products.

Google claims Judge Posner made a number of mistakes when he "categorically" barred injunctive relief for infringement of claimed standards essential patents (SEPs), including a failure "to apply the four-factor eBay test to evaluate Motorola?s claim for injunctive relief." The jurist effectively banned injunctive relief based on FRAND-committed patents, instead saying that only monetary damages could be sought unless a scenario arose in which Apple refused to pay royalties.

Google argues the decision hinders district courts from making case-by-case decisions on such matters in the future.

To this end, Google now says that Apple is an unwilling licensee of the SEPs, which allows the Mountain View tech giant to get around an FTC rule that mandates all legal pursuits related to FRAND-related patents be halted. By working around the nebulous rules set forth by the FTC and USPTO regarding such litigation, Google's Motorola hopes to win its 2.25 percent royalty demand, with which Apple has yet to comply.

From Google's filing:

Motorola offered considerable evidence showing that, unlike every other major cellular handset manufacturer, Apple has been an unwilling licensee vis-?-vis Motorola's standards-essential patent portfolio.



Apple will respond to Google's claims in a second filing, while amicus curiae submissions from those within the industry are now open.
post #2 of 76
Totally off topic, but as a foreigner, I so much like the expression "put a sock in it".
post #3 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Totally off topic, but as a foreigner, I so much like the expression "put a sock in it".

Not the least bit off topic. That's essentially what the judge told Google the last time around.
"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 #4 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Not the least bit off topic. That's essentially what the judge told Google the last time around.

And told Apple as well. He apparently had his fill of both of them, understanding the court was being played in a business negotiation.

 

(To be accurate, Judge Pender's ruling was made well before Google's purchase Motorola was completed, so he never really said anything of the sort to them)


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/15/13 at 5:31pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 76
I hope we can we finally stop saying that Google doesn't sue anyone.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 76
It is 'put a sock on it'.
post #7 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I hope we can we finally stop saying that Google doesn't sue anyone.

To be fair this isn't a new action, simply answering Apple's appeal of a ruling and a case filed well before Google took control of Motorola. A bit too late in the game to ignore it. But Google has finally (after 15 years) followed thru on it's very first IP infringement action in suing British Telecom a couple weeks back. Some might say they have a lot of catching up to do, but personally I hope it's a rarity. There's already too many questionable patent infringement actions in the pipeline. We don't need Google jumping in now too.

 

IMO I don't think it's likely to become habit anyway. They've always had a stated aversion to suing their tech neighbors.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post

It is 'put a sock on it'.

The idiom "put a sock in it" refers to the old gramophone which had no other form of volume control than to put a rolled up sock in the horn part. The updated legal terminology for please be quiet is "Shut your pie hole". I better put a smiley on that one. lol.gif

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #9 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Totally off topic, but as a foreigner, I so much like the expression "put a sock in it".

Haha… right on !
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #10 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And told Apple as well. He apparently had his fill of both of them, understanding the court was being played in a business negotiation.

(To be accurate, Judge Pender's ruling was made well before Google's purchase Motorola was completed, so he never really said anything of the sort to them)

Correction. When the plaintiff (Motorola, in this case) doesn't get what they want, it's called a 'loss'. Your silly spin notwithstanding.
"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 #11 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Correction. When the plaintiff (Motorola, in this case) doesn't get what they want, it's called a 'loss'. Your silly spin notwithstanding.

Did I say anything at all about Motorola losing or not losing anything? I thought not. Your silly spin doesn't work.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 76
In a few years time people will be saying, "I've always wanted to go into business but I couldn't afford the legal fees"...
post #13 of 76

Google is confused and desperate.  They should not have bought Motorola.

They need to license the patent to Apple for the same price as everyone else.

 

Did Samsung and HP get Andy Rubin taken off of Android?  

Did samsung and HP feel that Andy did not manage to polish the OS enough?

 

Now the next Android will be WebKit based.  That's the closest they can get to using Apple software in their Android.

 

Google had better focus on search and advertising before they get challenged by Apple and Samsung...


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 3/15/13 at 6:35pm
post #14 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And told Apple as well. He apparently had his fill of both of them, understanding the court was being played in a business negotiation.

 

(To be accurate, Judge Pender's ruling was made well before Google's purchase Motorola was completed, so he never really said anything of the sort to them)

 

Not entirely accurate. With both parties (Apple and Motorola) having their cases dismissed it could be considered a draw.

 

However, it doesn't end there. Posner had some very strong words regarding abuse of FRAND patents, and his statements were highly favorable to Apples position (and that of most reasonable tech companies). In this case it was a huge win for Apple and a serious blow to Motorola/Google.

 

Google made a settlement with the FTC over their patent abuse, and now it's going to get put to the test. The catch is the term "unwilling licensee". Google is still trying (rather foolishly) to claim 2.25% is reasonable. So Google thinks they can ask for the moon and if Apple doesn't pay they can try to claim they are "unwilling". I seriously doubt this is going to fly as anyone could ask for ridiculous amounts to try and claim the other party is unwilling to license.

 

My prediction is the FTC is going to be looking at this very closely and will "modify" the terms of the settlement. If Google can continue to abuse the patent system even after making a deal with the FTC, then that deal is worthless.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #15 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO I don't think it's likely to become habit anyway. They've always had a stated aversion to suing their tech neighbors.

I agree. It's just in bad in taste to sue people who steal when you're entire business model is based on stealing from others¡ 1biggrin.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #16 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I agree. It's just in bad in taste to sue people who steal when you're entire business model is based on stealing from others¡ 1biggrin.gif

Well played sir. . .

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #17 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Not entirely accurate. With both parties (Apple and Motorola) having their cases dismissed it could be considered a draw.

 

However, it doesn't end there. Posner had some very strong words regarding abuse of FRAND patents, and his statements were highly favorable to Apples position (and that of most reasonable tech companies). In this case it was a huge win for Apple and a serious blow to Motorola/Google.

 

Google made a settlement with the FTC over their patent abuse, and now it's going to get put to the test. The catch is the term "unwilling licensee". Google is still trying (rather foolishly) to claim 2.25% is reasonable. So Google thinks they can ask for the moon and if Apple doesn't pay they can try to claim they are "unwilling". I seriously doubt this is going to fly as anyone could ask for ridiculous amounts to try and claim the other party is unwilling to license.

 

My prediction is the FTC is going to be looking at this very closely and will "modify" the terms of the settlement. If Google can continue to abuse the patent system even after making a deal with the FTC, then that deal is worthless.

Yes it was entirely accurate.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/in-bid-for-patent-sanity-judge-throws-out-entire-applemotorola-case/

 

Anyway that's not worth arguing about. IMO the FTC deal is flawed from the get-go if it's not applied to others (ie, Interdigital)) who demand injunctions for supposed SEP infringement. The ITC accepted just such a case this week.  

 

The current proposal also leaves open the possibility of a company, say Nokia, demanding a Moto/Google injunction over FRAND IP claims while  Google would be prevented from answering their lawsuit in kind. Kinda one-sided don't you think if no one else will be held to that standard? Nonetheless Google was willing to accept it anyway.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/15/13 at 7:25pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post

It is 'put a sock on it'.

Wow, thanks for replying. Even though the i and o are next to each other it could've easily have been read as a typo, yet you respond. So I've been saying it wrong all my life.
post #19 of 76

Wouldn't most Google users fall under the term of "unwilling licensee"?

post #20 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Wouldn't most Google users fall under the term of "unwilling licensee"?
Probably although there seem to be many willing victims who sign up to gmail (ultimate spam generator) voluntarily.
A company that steals, lies and whines is a company that needs to be destroyed.
"If you are so concerned about your privacy, you can move house", from their then CEO.
Nobody in their right mind can defend this truly mind blowing obnoxious statement nor the person saying it.
So by extension the entire company is itself obnoxious and pathetic.
Words cannot describe how much I hate them. I am annoyed that Apple still has a relationship with them, although not as extensive as in the past.
post #21 of 76

Perhaps "unknowing licensee" would be more accurate...

post #22 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Perhaps "unknowing licensee" would be more accurate...

Ohh they knew
"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 #23 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Did I say anything at all about Motorola losing or not losing anything? I thought not. Your silly spin doesn't work.

Wrong.

You implied that Apple and Google both were equally slapped by the judge, but that's not the case. Nor is it a draw.

Motorola sued. The judge rejected a bunch of claims, and eventually, Motorola lost. Apple won. It's not a draw when the plaintiff walks away with nothing and the defendant doesn't have to pay any damages. That's a pure win for the defendant. The fact that the judge rejected some of Apple's arguments doesn't change that a bit.

And when you add in all the judge's specific comments about Google/Motorola regarding FRAND abuse, it was a sound smackdown for Google.
"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 #24 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Ohh they knew

No, most people don't know.

Much thought stops after the word 'free'...
post #25 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO I don't think it's likely to become habit anyway. They've always had a stated aversion to suing their tech neighbors.

 

They've also had a stated policy not to be evil and that didn't stop them. Google's "stated policies", like their privacy policy, are simply for PR consumption and have nothing to do with what they actually do.

post #26 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Wrong.

You implied that Apple and Google both were equally slapped by the judge, but that's not the case. Nor is it a draw.

Motorola sued. The judge rejected a bunch of claims, and eventually, Motorola lost. Apple won. It's not a draw when the plaintiff walks away with nothing and the defendant doesn't have to pay any damages. That's a pure win for the defendant. The fact that the judge rejected some of Apple's arguments doesn't change that a bit.

And when you add in all the judge's specific comments about Google/Motorola regarding FRAND abuse, it was a sound smackdown for Google.

JR, you're confused again.

 

Apple sued Motorola and Moto counter-sued. Both parties had their cases tossed and both got a lecture (more than once) during the same case before Judge Pender where the claims were combined.. Both companies are appealing their own dismissals. Take time to check facts before jumping in to comment that someone else is wrong. Too often it's you.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577453190197480550.html

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/judge-posner-scolds-at-apples-lawyers.html

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/22/3111607/apple-v-motorola-judge-posner-dismisses-entire-patent-case


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 6:07am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

JR, you're confused again.

Apple sued Motorola and Moto counter-sued. Both parties had their cases tossed and both got a lecture (more than once) during the same case before Judge Pender where the claims were combined.. Both companies are appealing their own dismissals. Take time to check facts before jumping in to comment that someone else is wrong. Too often it's you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577453190197480550.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/judge-posner-scolds-at-apples-lawyers.html
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/22/3111607/apple-v-motorola-judge-posner-dismisses-entire-patent-case

As usual, your obfuscation includes confusing multiple suits and simply throwing mud to try to cloud the real issues.

Go back to the original article here. Read the first paragraph:
"Google and Motorola on Thursday entered an initial filing with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals over the dismissal of a patent suit against Apple, which saw a circuit court judge toss arguments from both parties in 2011."

So if Apple is the one who initiated it, why is it a 'patent suit against Apple'?

It was a patent suit against Apple. Motorola/Google got nothing. Apple had to pay nothing. That's a win for Apple and a loss for the plaintiffs - no matter how you try to spin it.
"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 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


As usual, your obfuscation includes confusing multiple suits and simply throwing mud to try to cloud the real issues.

Go back to the original article here. Read the first paragraph:
"Google and Motorola on Thursday entered an initial filing with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals over the dismissal of a patent suit against Apple, which saw a circuit court judge toss arguments from both parties in 2011."

...and from paragraph two sir. Those blue letters mean something. You should click on them once in awhile to avoid continuing confusion.  

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/22/apples_patent_case_against_motorola_dismissed_with_prejudice

 

It's usually about here that you try to change the argument isn't it?


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/16/13 at 7:05am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

No, most people don't know.

Much thought stops after the word 'free'...

In this case Apple knew that they had to pay a license fee they just didn't want to pay the amount Motorola was asking.
"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 #30 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...and from paragraph two sir. Those blue letters mean something. You should click on them once in awhile to avoid continuing confusion.  
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/22/apples_patent_case_against_motorola_dismissed_with_prejudice

It's usually about here that you try to change the argument isn't it?

This has been explained to you repeatedly. Motorola filed suit first. Apple filed a countersuit. The court dismissed both cases. The one that you're so eager to brag about is Apple's COUNTERsuit.

Motorola filed first - as the article says.
"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 #31 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This has been explained to you repeatedly. Motorola filed suit first. Apple filed a countersuit. The court dismissed both cases. The one that you're so eager to brag about is Apple's COUNTERsuit.

Motorola filed first - as the article says.

It seems to me this should be easy to clear up without a lot of back and forth posts. GG has a citation going back to last Summer. I don't see a citation from you in this thread.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/16/13 at 11:56am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #32 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It seems to me this should be easy to clear up without a lot of back and forth posts. GG has a citation going back to last Summer. I don't see a citation from you in this thread.

I don't need to provide a citation in this case. All we need to do is read the link that googleguy provided. Go to the last paragraph:

"The ruling wraps up at least one chapter of the Apple v. Motorola saga that began when the Droid maker filed a complaint with the ITC in 2010 only to be hit shortly after with the Apple countersuit dismissed today. Both parties have the option to appeal the dismissal to a higher court but no official plans to do so have been announced."

Even his own link says that I'm right and he's wrong.

Anyone want to guess on what his next excuse will be to try to muddy the water further?
Edited by jragosta - 3/16/13 at 11:48am
"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 #33 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I don't need to. All we need to do is read the link that googleguy provided. Go to the last paragraph:

"The ruling wraps up at least one chapter of the Apple v. Motorola saga that began when the Droid maker filed a complaint with the ITC in 2010 only to be hit shortly after with the Apple countersuit dismissed today. Both parties have the option to appeal the dismissal to a higher court but no official plans to do so have been announced."

Even his own link says that I'm right and he's wrong.

Anyone want to guess on what his next excuse will be to try to muddy the water further?

I see your point, but direct citations do help make a case.

From GG's link there is a link to what you mention from another AI article back in 2010 where Motorola Mobility did in fact file a complaint with the ITC against Apple.


Now AI doesn't link to the official documents — like it does now with new articles — but there is an extensive Wikipage on it that not only lists multiple filings in multiple states at the same time but also sources for the info per usual.


I don't know if this started off a debate over Google suing Apple but back in 2010 this was not owned but it's definitely a case of MM suing Apple, not the other way around or a mere counter-suit.


PS: Calling him googleguy helps an argument as much as using Crapple to defend a position. Now I say this not because I care about being respectful or anyone's feelings being hurt (as I really doubt any offense is taken) but from the PoV of making the best, most convincing argument you can make.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/16/13 at 12:02pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #34 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I see your point, but direct citations do help make a case..

We're not in a court of law. If googleguy thought his link was important enough to cite (repeatedly), then he considers it to be valid. The fact that it very specifically states that he is wrong is all I need to prove my case. He can't pretend that the link is valid and the article is correct - except the points that don't agree with him.

Or, he may try it, but thinking people won't let him get away with it.
"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 #35 of 76
Motorola filed first against Apple as a preemptive way to choose the court venue.

Motorola wasn't originally planning to sue Apple, but after Apple sued others, they figured they were next. (Some sources claim that Motorola was warned only a week ahead of time and had to scramble to put together a case before Apple could file theirs.) As their lawsuit read:
Quote:
"Like HTC, Motorola Mobility manufactures and sells mobile phones that also use the Android operating system, and Motorola Mobility has engaged in confidential negotiations with regarding the licensing of intellectual property.

"As a result of these negotiations and (Apple's) litigation history, including recent assertion of the patents-in-suit against the Android operating system, Motorola Mobility has a reasonable apprehension that it faces an infringement suit related to the patents-in-suit." - Motorola

If you don't believe me, Florian Mueller later noted the same thing. He wrote in a blog:
Quote:
"I have meanwhile seen articles in which certain experts -- who are experts in some areas, but likely spend less time perusing Android patent suit court filings than I do -- claimed that Motorola was the aggressor and Apple "forced to defend itself", which is plain wrong."
...
"It's highly probable that Apple had a lawsuit in the making but had to change plans after the DJ action in terms of which patents to assert in which court. It's possible that the DJ action pre-empted Apple by only a day or two, but even a few weeks doesn't mean much. " - Mueller

Edited by KDarling - 3/16/13 at 12:21pm
post #36 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

We're not in a court of law. If googleguy thought his link was important enough to cite (repeatedly), then he considers it to be valid. The fact that it very specifically states that he is wrong is all I need to prove my case. He can't pretend that the link is valid and the article is correct - except the points that don't agree with him.

Or, he may try it, but thinking people won't let him get away with it.

I don't click on most links I see here. Most are descriptive enough in the title. Citations are powerful and his looked better than yours. Let's also remember you quoted AI which can be biased or simply make a mistake. They don't often correct them either. The bottom line is your position would have been much stronger if you had simply posted the requisite links to nip it in the bud early on. You only proved your case to yourself, hence my jumping in and asking for a citation to back up your case.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #37 of 76
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
PS: Calling him googleguy helps an argument as much as using Crapple to defend a position. Now I say this not because I care about being respectful or anyone's feelings being hurt (as I really doubt any offense is taken) but from the PoV of making the best, most convincing argument you can make.

 

Hmm… Given that Huddler has a filter to get rid of "unwanted" content, I wonder if it would be possible for a site to edit that directly, setting specific changes.

 

For example, we could automatically filter "samsuck", et. al. back to "Samsung", coloring the word slightly different to denote that this has happened. I say that because it's still a valid point to know who said what and why; knowing that they did do the name-change is important, even if seeing it isn't.

 

Of course then we could also have "iSheep", "Crapple", et. al. filter to "I am pathetic and have absolutely no valid argument whatsoever and have resorted to signing up to a pro-Apple website for the sole purpose of mocking and deriding the company and its users." 1biggrin.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 #38 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Motorola filed first against Apple...

Everything else is irrelevant.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #39 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Motorola filed first against Apple as a preemptive way to choose the court venue.

Motorola wasn't originally planning to sue Apple, but after Apple sued others, they figured they were next. (Some sources claim that Motorola was warned a week ahead of time and had to scramble to put together a case before Apple could file theirs.) As their lawsuit read:
If you don't believe me, Florian Mueller later noted the same thing. He wrote in a blog:

IOW, the facts are that Motorola filed first.

Everything else is pure speculation. AND, it's irrelevant for this discussion.

Motorola filed a lawsuit. They won nothing and Apple had to pay nothing. That means it was very clearly not a draw. Apple won and Motorola lost.
"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 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't click on most links I see here. Most are descriptive enough in the title. Citations are powerful and his looked better than yours. Let's also remember you quoted AI which can be biased or simply make a mistake. They don't often correct them either. The bottom line is your position would have been much stronger if you had simply posted the requisite links to nip it in the bud early on. You only proved your case to yourself, hence my jumping in and asking for a citation to back up your case.

But it's more fun to watch him keep digging his hole deeper - and then burying him with his own links.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google calls Apple 'unwilling licensee' in bid for injunction over FRAND patent violations