or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Motorola has given notice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it will be contesting the International Trade Commission's dismissal of a case against Apple, the second time the now Google-owned company has filed an appeal tied to that investigation.

Motorola


The appeals notice, uncovered by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller after recently being made public, is in regard to an ITC decision to throw out a case against Apple after finding six Motorola patents-in-suit invalid.

In its dismissal, which was filed a month ago, the trade body found Motorola's last standing patent, a property for an infrared proximity sensor, invalid. The company was asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 for a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device," which covers a system that ignores errant screen touches during a phone call.

As noted by Mueller, Google's latest appeal is the second such action for the ITC investigation. The first came in November 2012, which questioned a decision that cleared Apple of infringing on three patents. The contention from Google resulted in a review of the findings, and that appeal has yet to be resolved.

Mueller pointed out that Apple may want to combine the two appeals, thus saving court resources, but the tactic is likely to fail due to the long span between Google's filings.

post #2 of 22

Clearly, holding a phone against the side of your face was a new and unique idea that had never been thought of prior to this patent...

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

Though I'm not really sure why Apple would want to combine Motogoogle's appeals.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #3 of 22

Hooray!   Seeing more or less trivial patents invalidated never gets old.  The new digital age is less about inventions and more about obstruction.   Only 939488583738292 more patents related to 'touching' 'shaping' 'looking at' and 'methods for performing "an operation" on a list' to go and maybe our court system can start working on legitimate stuff

post #4 of 22
Waiting for GG to claim Google never initiates anything.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #5 of 22

Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.

 

Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.

 

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.

 

Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.

 

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.

post #6 of 22
Do no evil, google.
post #7 of 22

Three strikes and they're out...

post #8 of 22
LOL More reporting of court paperwork as 'news.'

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.

 

Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.

 

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.

 

Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.

 

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.


How is that different from what virtually every company does? Appealing is a legal option and most companies, including those you worship, employ that option liberally, frequently and almost automatically. It's absurd, ridiculous, ignorant, hypocritical and unintelligent to mock any company for appealing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Waiting for GG to claim Google never initiates anything.

This is a fair comment (about Google, not about GG - that part I couldn't care less about). Motorola is part of Google now, and Google did once declare a non-aggression policy on patents. Whether one agrees with Apple's legal actions, their objective is quite clear. This is not true of Google.

post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

LOL More reporting of court paperwork as 'news.'


 LOL. More people reading and mocking it. Yet the joke is clearly, squarely on the mocking reader.

post #11 of 22
I'm glad to see that Patent Troll Google has lost again, but let's not assume that this is a trivial patent simply because the people describing it do so in simple terms.

Multi-touch is a very sophisticated technology, never seen before (despite the claims from idiots who don't know how it works and who always bring up systems working on a different method, such as pushing two wires tougher as if they were "prior art".) ... and deserves to be protected.

Most of these "trivial" patents are not actually trivial. And getting them tried in court IS the way the patent system was designed.

The idea that there's a problem here is asinine-- the only problem is that innovators like Apple can't get timely resolution to these violations, while companies like google skate by.

But it's embarrassing that people would claim that patents stifle innovation-- patents ARE innovation, and the people being "stifled" weren't being innovative, they were being copycats.

If these patents really are trivial they don't stand up in court.
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

This is a fair comment (about Google, not about GG - that part I couldn't care less about). Motorola is part of Google now, and Google did once declare a non-aggression policy on patents. Whether one agrees with Apple's legal actions, their objective is quite clear. This is not true of Google.

 

Yes Google did declare a non-agression policy on phone patents when it didn't own any phone patents of its own. However, Google is very protective of its search patents while being dismissive of the copyright infringements it makes while profiting from those copyright infringements. So basically, Google thinks the world should be free if it is someone else's work but should be protected if it is something Google owns.  Hypocritical?  Absolutely.

post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


 LOL. More people reading and mocking it. Yet the joke is clearly, squarely on the mocking reader.

 

LOL. Articles are totally fair game for mockery; it's what the forums are for. Mocking others for mocking the articles? What are you, an AppleInsider fanboy?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


How is that different from what virtually every company does? Appealing is a legal option and most companies, including those you worship, employ that option liberally, frequently and almost automatically. It's absurd, ridiculous, ignorant, hypocritical and unintelligent to mock any company for appealing.

 

 

 

What about a company trying to abuse the court system by constant appeals and delays to delay the inevitable - having to pay up (like Samsung does with Apple - copy now, pay way, way later).

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

Yes Google did declare a non-agression policy on phone patents when it didn't own any phone patents of its own. However, Google is very protective of its search patents while being dismissive of the copyright infringements it makes while profiting from those copyright infringements. So basically, Google thinks the world should be free if it is someone else's work but should be protected if it is something Google owns.  Hypocritical?  Absolutely.
Hypocritical? What leads you to claim Google has been very protective of their search patents? I'd think that some search competitor has probably infringed on a Google patent at some point over the past 15 years. How many times has Google sued any of them?

BTW, what non-aggression patent pledge are you and the other poster referring to? Sounds admirable. I'd like to read it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/25/13 at 4:42pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Multi-touch is a very sophisticated technology, never seen before (despite the claims from idiots who don't know how it works and who always bring up systems working on a different method, such as pushing two wires tougher as if they were "prior art".) ... and deserves to be protected.

 

  1. Multi-touch had been around for decades before Apple used it.
  2. None of the patents in this case are about multi-touch.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

Yes Google did declare a non-agression policy on phone patents when it didn't own any phone patents of its own. 

 

Got a link?  The only such policy I can find is their Non-Assertion Pledge about patents use in Free or Open Source software... as long as nobody sues them first.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

What about a company trying to abuse the court system by constant appeals and delays to delay the inevitable - having to pay up (like Samsung does with Apple - copy now, pay way, way later).

 

True, Apple's lawyers have dragged FRAND cases through the courts for years, delaying paying for SEP usage.

 

Several times Federal judges have thrown out Apple lawsuits with prejudice, for trying to use the court system to lower their rates.

 

Even when a fair judge was willing to set a rate, Apple refused.


Edited by KDarling - 5/25/13 at 5:06pm
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

True, Apple's lawyers have dragged FRAND cases through the courts for years, delaying paying for SEP usage.


Several times Federal judges have thrown out Apple lawsuits with prejudice, for trying to use the court system to lower their rates.

Even when a fair judge was willing to set a rate, Apple refused.

As usual, you leave out the key facts.

Most of the FRAND cases that have been settled have been in Apple's favor. Google, Motorola, and Samsung have a history of abusing FRAND rules and Apple's "dragging them out in court" has generally been simply to get them to abide by the FRAND rules they agreed to when they offered their technology.

But I guess it makes you feel better to blame the victim.
"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 #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


As usual, you leave out the key facts.

Most of the FRAND cases that have been settled have been in Apple's favor. Google, Motorola, and Samsung have a history of abusing FRAND rules and Apple's "dragging them out in court" has generally been simply to get them to abide by the FRAND rules they agreed to when they offered their technology.

But I guess it makes you feel better to blame the victim.

There's been a bit of "abuse' all around depending on how you define it. Decades ago the old school companies like Nokia, Qualcomm, Motorola, Ericsson and others decided on a licensing method and terms that they felt gave them the best chance of maintaining control over the new cell industry that they had been major contributors to. Get together and form industry standards and anyone wanting in had to pay the ones that started it. It worked for several years too.

(As an aside throwing Google in that group is as silly as claiming Apple belongs. Neither held cellular SEP's to abuse in the first place) 

 

Just as Motorola, Qualcomm etc disrupted the traditional phone industry and helped make fledgling cellular the hugely successful market it became while taking a cut for themselves from every cellphone sold, so Apple's iPhone disrupted the communications industry once again in 2007. Unlike the SEP policies that the earlier companies used to protect their place, Apple went the "patent everything and don't share it" route. Aggressively protect their IP with lawsuits rather than royalties. Both schemes work, but Apple is seeing some success in neutering the control that "standards" hold over the industry and that's causing turf fights. Perhaps that will force some of the other players to re-think their willingness to contribute to standards in the first place as it may be more advantageous to keep IP to themselves rather than share. Dunno.

 

At any rate I don't particularly care for the way licensing royalties have been done by most of the cell standards contributors.  It was an industry wide wink-and-nod between all the big techs to keep new players out IMO, and if not they were expected to pay well for the privilege. New companies were at a big disadvantage before they could release their first product. 

 

When Apple came on the scene they were well aware that standards royalties were expected in the cell-phone industry. They're hardly new to the game.  But even if they wished to plead ignorance regarding standards royalties when the iPhone was first introduced (Who me? as Alfred E. Neuman famously said) they were approached by some of those SEP holders early on yet still refused to take a license without being sued.

 

Had the iPhone struggled in the market perhaps Apple may not have been able to afford ignoring the Nokia's and Moto's of the industry, but they didn't struggle. With surging profits from iPhone sales Apple chose to disregard some of the royalty demands unless pressured, Nokia had to play hardball to get Apple to take a license to their standards package. Moto is still trying. Certainly you wouldn't support Apple knowing full-well that they were not licensed to use Motorola's patents yet 6 years later still using them for free, not paying a single penny, despite the billions in profit the iPhone has brought them with technology invented and developed by Motorola in part. Apple's legal teams made it possible to knowingly use IP without a license to do so.

 

IMO there's plenty of fault to spread around for the situation that SEP's, PAE's and software patents in general are now in. No party is blameless, and all sides share some guilt.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/26/13 at 10:02am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 22
Don't care about all these. Just want to ask when we will have our public 3G network after we'd paid so much taxes after all these years.
post #20 of 22
Originally Posted by Bean Cube View Post
Don't care about all these. Just want to ask when we will have our public 3G network after we'd paid so much taxes after all these years.

 

Who promised you that? That was never going to happen.

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 #21 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's been a bit of "abuse' all around depending on how you define it. Decades ago the old school companies like Nokia, Qualcomm, Motorola, Ericsson and others decided on a licensing method and terms that they felt gave them the best chance of maintaining control over the new cell industry that they had been major contributors to. Get together and form industry standards and anyone wanting in had to pay the ones that started it. It worked for several years too.
(As an aside throwing Google in that group is as silly as claiming Apple belongs. Neither held cellular SEP's to abuse in the first place) 

Nice try. You're managing to ignore the fact that Motorola (now Google) and Samsung have BOTH been found guilty of FRAND abuse while Apple has not (note that Apple does have some SEP patents, as well).
"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 #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Nice try. You're managing to ignore the fact that Motorola (now Google) and Samsung have BOTH been found guilty of FRAND abuse while Apple has not 

Wha?? When did that happen? I completely missed the news about Moto. You wouldn't be using an investigation or even a preliminary finding as proof of guilt would you? I think you got ahead of yourself.

 

Just to be clear, a company that's aware its product uses IP belonging to another and does so despite no permission to do so and notice that they don't, refuses to make any payment at all for over 5 years and does so by taking advantage of every court, every appeal, and every delay available to it is A-OK in your view?

 

Apple proudly announced that was their intent, drag it out forever if need be rather than pay a dime in court determined royalties to Motorola if it wasn't to their liking. I thought you held strong beliefs in the sanctity of intellectual property? If it's not Apple's, and even they agree it isn't and belongs to Moto, why would you suddenly argue they have the right to use it for profit without permission of the owner for even a week much less years? Because Motorola agreed to license it fairly means Apple alone gets to decide how much they'll pay if anything at all? It sounds as tho their use of the courts to avoid paying others for their IP might qualify as abusive to some.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/26/13 at 5:24pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple