or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court rules Apple can sue Motorola, creates claim chaos for Data Detectors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Appeals court rules Apple can sue Motorola, creates claim chaos for Data Detectors

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
A U.S. appeals court ruled that Apple and Google's Motorola can sue each other over smartphone patents, overturning Judge Richard Posner's opinion from the summer of 2012. The court also sided with a claim construction that does not favor Apple, and may impact its case with Samsung.

Apple Data Detectors


According to a report by Bloomberg, the appeals court ruled that Judge Posner "wrongly threw out the case."

Judge Posner had issued a critical rebuke of Apple's entire business model centered around innovation, recommending that Apple license its technology to Motorola instead of seeking an injunction which said would be "catastrophic" and harmful to consumers.

Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said. Apple doesn't want to be forced to license its patented technologies to Google for use in Android.

Apple doesn't want to be forced to license its patented technologies to Google for use in Android. An injunction on infringement, Apple's attorney argued at that trial, "means we're not competing with them where they are using our technology against us."

The appeals court decision opens the potential for Apple and Motorola to resume their lawsuits, which cover largely the same ground involved in the two Apple vs. Samsung cases, one of which is still being argued in court.

Patent claim construction



Another potential impact of the new appeals court ruling on Apple's current litigation is that it sided with Google's Motorola in arguing that, for the Apple Data Detectors patent, the analysis done to create links must involve a server process separate from the client.

This claim construction could allow not only Motorola to sidestep Apple's patent, but could also benefit Samsung, which also wants to argue that it technically doesn't infringe upon Apple's patent because of a specific interpretation of the word "server."

In the Apple vs Samsung case, the presiding Judge Lucy Koh arrived at a different decision. Following the 90 page decision handed down by the appeals court, Apple and Samsung are working to develop arguments to the court about how to proceed.

In tweets by CNET reporter Shara Tibken, Judge Koh reportedly said the issue could "potentially blow up what we've already done with this jury for a month," but the jurist was also cited as saying, "Just because a district court judge has construed a claim one way doesn't mean I have to adopt that."

Tibken also reported that "Apple and Samsung now working out plan for Monday for new testimony related to '647 patent."
post #2 of 44
Thank the progress heavens that the appeals Court has seen the light with the crazily 647 patent. That patent claim construction basically gutted that whole patent. Now apple doesn't own the idea of data linking just one specific excexution of it. I'm
post #3 of 44
Quote:
Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said.

Well boohooo. Too bad for them.
Users of phones from Apple's competitors can't use the same tech, what a scandal!
:/
post #4 of 44
Posner is the equivalent of a judicial troll.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Thank the progress heavens that the appeals Court has seen the light with the crazily 647 patent. That patent claim construction basically gutted that whole patent. Now apple doesn't own the idea of data linking just one specific excexution of it. I'm

 

Apple will push this to the Supreme Court if necessary...and they should.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Apple will push this to the Supreme Court if necessary...and they should.

I would hope so, that would actually force the U.S to retructure it's patent system and actually decide how and when software should be patentable. Maybe even get more funding for those poor souls at the patent office.
post #7 of 44
C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.

It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.
post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


I would hope so, that would actually force the U.S to retructure it's patent system and actually decide how and when software should be patentable. Maybe even get more funding for those poor souls at the patent office.

 

Why would it "force the U.S. to restructure it's patent system"? The Supreme Court's job is to judge whether laws are constitutional. This case has nothing to do with that.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post

C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.

It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.

 

There have been numerous calls for a special "patent court" filled with industry and patent professionals. There is some merit to the idea, however regular cases of law are supposed to be judged by juries composed of "normal" people. It is a problem, either way.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Apple will push this to the Supreme Court if necessary...and they should.

Doesn't seem like an issue SCOTUS would find worthy of hearing IMO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 44
It amazes me how the US court system is attempting to punish Apple for being unique.
post #12 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Why would it "force the U.S. to restructure it's patent system"? The Supreme Court's job is to judge whether laws are constitutional. This case has nothing to do with that.

More national spot light, maybe bring the issue to the forfront of congress. Might even get a patent system that is more inline with that of the EU.

Just how the aeoro case vs the broadcasters is getting more focus on the issues within or antiquated copyright laws maybe a supreme Court case would do the same for our dark aged patent laws.
post #13 of 44
Good thing the ruling was overturned. I can't see how the gov can force one company to license it's non SEP patents.
post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

It amazes me how the US court system is attempting to punish Apple for being unique.

Apple is not being punished. All these cases are a result of our patent system not being able to handle software and when it should and shouldn't patentable. Apple took advantage of a rubber stamp, over streched pattent office, they are not the only ones they just do it better than most. View this as a correction or discussion about what exactly should a patent entail? How long should be viable? Does software deserve to share the same proctection that pharmaceutical drugs receive under our patent system? Is copyright the right way to proctect software instead of patents? All huge questions.
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

There have been numerous calls for a special "patent court" filled with industry and patent professionals. There is some merit to the idea, however regular cases of law are supposed to be judged by juries composed of "normal" people. It is a problem, either way.

 

I am an IT savvy lawyer who also is a CPA (forgive the brag) who is the key witness in an IT case with $100M in prospect damages.  Our lawyer in the case holds postgraduate qualifications in electrical engineering.  He is worth his weight in gold as he cuts through all the bulls**t.

 

"Normal' just does not cut it in these types of cases any more.  More importantly, justice is just not done, nor even seen to be done in these cases.  Time to wise up as community and fix it.

post #16 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


More national spot light, maybe bring the issue to the forfront of congress. Might even get a patent system that is more inline with that of the EU.

Just how the aeoro case vs the broadcasters is getting more focus on the issues within or antiquated copyright laws maybe a supreme Court case would do the same for our dark aged patent laws.

 

As far as I understand things, the EU does not really have a unified approach to patent validity and enforcement. I've seen numerous instances of Apple's patents receiving different rulings in, for example, Germany versus England.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #17 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Doesn't seem like an issue SCOTUS would find worthy of hearing IMO.

It is an issue SCOTUS would find worthy in my opinion. It is scandalous how many companies in the Android camp have chosen to steal instead of spending millions to billions on their own technologies. Then when sued for theft, they choose to sue to defend themselves. If Android is so uniquely innovative then that camp does not need anything from Apple.
post #18 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post
 

 

I am an IT savvy lawyer who also is a CPA (forgive the brag) who is the key witness in an IT case with $100M in prospect damages.  Our lawyer in the case holds postgraduate qualifications in electrical engineering.  He is worth his weight in gold as he cuts through all the bulls**t.

 

"Normal' just does not cut it in these types of cases any more.  More importantly, justice is just not done, nor even seen to be done in these cases.  Time to wise up as community and fix it.

 

If you are involved in an ongoing case as a witness, aren't you violating the law by discussing any element of that case here?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

If you are involved in an ongoing case as a witness, aren't you violating the law by discussing any element of that case here?

 

What ?  Another bush lawyer on the forum.  Why did I bother?

post #20 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Doesn't seem like an issue SCOTUS would find worthy of hearing IMO.

 

You may be right about this.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post
 

 

What ?  Another bush lawyer on the forum.  Why did I bother?

 

What do you mean by "bush lawyer"?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

If you are involved in an ongoing case as a witness, aren't you violating the law by discussing any element of that case here?

No, he is not.

 

First, he is not revealing any specifics of the case, only the qualifications of the attorneys involved.

 

Second, only the jury is prohibited form discussing the case with outsiders. A witness is free to say anything they want as they have no inside knowledge - just their own observations or opinions.

 

Third, revealing information about the case would be illegal only if the Judge imposed a gag-order on all parties. 

post #23 of 44

Waiting for my boy "F-to-the-M" (Florian Mueller) to start crying about how Google/Motorola should be the only one's allowed to sue for SEPs.

post #24 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said.

 

Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.


Edited by DroidFTW - 4/25/14 at 12:25pm
post #25 of 44

Every time someone says that Apple suited first in the case of Motrorola it was done for this reason, Motorola, prior to Google buy attempted to force Apple to licence all the Non-SEP in exchange for Motorola licensing their SEP. Motorola attempted to Blackmail apple into allow them to use all their unique IP and this judge was helping Motorola do that. 

 

Quote:
Judge Posner had issued a critical rebuke of Apple's entire business model centered around innovation, recommending that Apple license its technology to Motorola instead of seeking an injunction which said would be "catastrophic" and harmful to consumers.

Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said. Apple doesn't want to be forced to license its patented technologies to Google for use in Android.
post #26 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.

I agree, I do not believe he actually said that, it was implied by his action and the fact he told Apple and Motorola to work a deal out with licensing. But other sources are making a similar statement as well. I do know for a fact that Motorola wanted Apple to cross license all apple iphone non-SEP in exchange for Motorola SEP.

 

BTW, it not AI quote but

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/apple-google-lawsuit-idINL1E8HK25C20120620

 

Quote:

Apple attorney Matthew Powers said it is not seeking an order barring the sale of Motorola phones. Rather, Apple would be satisfied with an injunction requiring Motorola to remove Apple's patented technology from Motorola phones within three months.

That outcome would ensure the Android phones do not share some of the same features as the iPhone, a differentiation that could help Apple in the marketplace. One of the patents at issue, for instance, covers technology to stream real time video without glitches or delays.

"It means we're not competing with them where they are using our technology against us," Powers said.

But Posner said it may be preferable to direct Motorola to pay Apple a compulsory royalty. Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, he said.


Edited by Maestro64 - 4/25/14 at 12:41pm
post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post

C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.

It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.

It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is ...

FWIW, any BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) device can act as a client, server or both!

It is also worth noting that in BLE, the words client and server have quite different meanings than the more common client/server definitions.

Quote:
Quick Overview
  • Here's what this article covers:
  • Master (or "central") devices scan for other devices. Usually, the master is the smartphone/tablet/PC.
  • Slave (or "peripheral") devices advertise and wait for connections. Usually, the slave is the BLE112/BLE113 module.
  • Client devices access remote resources over a BLE link using the GATT protocol. Usually, the master is also the client.
  • Server devices have a local database and access control methods, and provide resources to the remote client. Usually, the slave is also the server.
  • You can use read, write, notify, or indicate operations to move data between the client and the server.
    • Read and write operations are requested by the client and the server responds (or acknowledges).
    • Notify and indicate operations are enabled by the client but initiated by the server, providing a way to push data to the client.
    • Notifications are unacknowledged, while indications are acknowledged. Notifications are therefore faster, but less reliable
  • Example gatt.xml content with GATT server structure for a "typical" custom BLE peripheral device.

https://bluegiga.zendesk.com/entries/25053373--REFERENCE-BLE-master-slave-GATT-client-server-and-data-RX-TX-basics
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #28 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Forcing Motorola to adopt inferior, non-Apple technology, as opposed to paying a royalty, would not benefit consumers, Posner said.

Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.

^^^ LOL
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post

C'mon, do these jurists really understand any of this. I've watched judges fall asleep on their hand as counsel talked stuff as simple as 'client', 'server'. Data detectors? No chance ! Some of these adjudicators need a PhD in quantum physics to really 'get it'.


It's time to appoint specialist judges for these types of cases and indeed change the law to allow professional jury panels who will save both time money and truly bring a just and fair outcome to these types of causes.

There have been numerous calls for a special "patent court" filled with industry and patent professionals. There is some merit to the idea, however regular cases of law are supposed to be judged by juries composed of "normal" people. It is a problem, either way.

Bankruptcy (chapter 7 and chapter 11) has its own courts, so there's ample precedence.
post #30 of 44
Judge Posner was too clever -- and arrogant -- by half. Nice to see him put in his place, for a change.
post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Judge Posner had issued a critical rebuke of Apple's entire business model centered around innovation"

Yeah, Apple has been losing money hand-over-fist ever since. Proves just how relevant Posner is.

post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Judge Posner was too clever -- and arrogant -- by half. Nice to see him put in his place, for a change.

 

It would be even nicer to see him involuntarily retired from the bench.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 44
Isn't Lenovo currently in possession of the bag o' shit?
post #34 of 44

Tweets from Shara Tibken (just minutes ago, regarding resumption of testimony this coming Monday):

 

Samsung now says it doesn't want testimony to be reopened. Odd about face. #appsung

 

 

Samsung atty: "I do think this gives Apple a do-over. They made a strategic choice, so strategic that they tried to gut my case."

 


Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/25/14 at 4:30pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

Posner said that, did he?  I think a citation is needed for that one.  And because this is a DED article I feel it's necessary to mention that citing yourself doesn't count.

Here is the ruling read for yourself before you accuse DED.  http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/97979282?access_key=key-2fxyxlkc91re893ri4u5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

 

He did in fact suggest exactly what Dilger said.

post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post
 

Here is the ruling read for yourself before you accuse DED.  http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/97979282?access_key=key-2fxyxlkc91re893ri4u5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

 

He did in fact suggest exactly what Dilger said.

And his reasoning was that "Apple is not a “small company”; its market capitalization exceeds that of Google and Microsoft com-bined. To suggest that it has suffered loss of market share, brandrecognition, or customer goodwill as a result of Motorola’s alleged infringement of the patent claims still in play in this case is wild conjecture."  Well, lets fast forward two years, and that is exactly what Samsung has gotten away with.

post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post
 

Here is the ruling read for yourself before you accuse DED.  http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/97979282?access_key=key-2fxyxlkc91re893ri4u5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

 

He did in fact suggest exactly what Dilger said.

 

Asking for a citation is an accusation?  I'm not sure I agree with that, but thanks for the link.  I did a search for "inferior" yet no results came up.  That would suggest to me that Posner didn't say what DED wrote.  If Posner did, then by all means tell us where Posner references

'inferior, non-Apple technology'.  I would be very surprised if a judge were to say anything along the lines of non-Apple technology being inferior as was asserted.  Then again, anything's possible as a judge once determined that Samsung tablets weren't as 'cool' as iPads.


Edited by DroidFTW - 4/25/14 at 7:44pm
post #38 of 44
That'll do, DED. That'll do.

"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 #39 of 44
Another big opinion from the ruling:

Contrary to Posner's original finding there is no general prohibition on injunctions concerning SEP patent infringements.
"To the extent that the district court applied a per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, it erred. While Motorola’s FRAND commitments are certainly criteria relevant to its entitlement to an injunction, we see no reason to create, as some amici urge, a separate rule or analytical framework for addressing injunctions for FRAND-committed patents. . . an injunction may be justified where an infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect."

In a nutshell Federal Court opinion is now that SEP's should be treated the same as all other patents and judges should simply use the 4 factors established in eBay/Merc to determine if an injunction might be appropriate. SEP's should not be singled out for different treatment.

In a dissenting opinion Chief Judge Rader went even further saying the court also erred by not allowing Motorola to prove Apple is an "unwilling licensee" and thus subject to a possible injunction for failing to take a license to Motorola's FRAND-pledged IP.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/26/14 at 4:22am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post
Apple is not being punished. All these cases are a result of our patent system not being able to handle software and when it should and shouldn't patentable. Apple took advantage of a rubber stamp, over streched pattent office, they are not the only ones they just do it better than most. View this as a correction or discussion about what exactly should a patent entail? How long should be viable? Does software deserve to share the same proctection that pharmaceutical drugs receive under our patent system? Is copyright the right way to proctect software instead of patents? All huge questions.

 

Software patents are complicated. Copyright won't help it's too easy to obfuscate code. Consider works that copyright is intended to protect; authors, musicians, painters, all works that are not easily obfuscated. You can't rearrange pages in a book or bars on a music sheet and produce the desired result. With software, you can swap languages and obfuscate your logic to appear unique while implementing someone else's protected work.

 

I think that is why a lot of software patents appear to be high level ideas. The only way to protect an algorithm is to protect the method used to derive a result. Anything more specific allows competitors to implement your algorithm in a roundabout way to skirt your protection.

 

What is the solution? I honestly have no idea. I don't think we have any current laws that are better suited to software, nor do I believe what we are using is working either. Hopefully someone can come up with a new, better solution!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Appeals court rules Apple can sue Motorola, creates claim chaos for Data Detectors
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court rules Apple can sue Motorola, creates claim chaos for Data Detectors