Judge orders Motorola to provide Apple details of Google's acquisition plans, Android development
The U.S. Circuit Judge overseeing the patent dispute between Apple and Motorola Mobility has ordered Motorola to provide Apple with details of Google's $12.5 billion acquisition as well as information about the development of Android.
In a filing on March 2, Apple requested to obtain the information stating that "the Android/Motorola acquisition discovery is highly relevant to Apple’s claims and defenses" in its ongoing patent suit against Motorola, which is also countersuing Apple.
According to a report by Bloomberg, Judge Richard A. Posner granted Apple's request, ordering that "Motorola shall be expected to obtain full and immediate compliance by Google with Apple’s liability discovery demands."
The judge also scheduled two trials before separate juries on June 11, the first covering six patent infringements brought by Apple and the second dealing with three patents brought by Motorola.
Motorola had opposed giving Apple more information about Google's acquisition plans, arguing that Google wasn't a party to the lawsuit. "Google’s employees and documents are not within the ‘possession, custody, or control’ of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google’s objections," the company's attorneys argued.
Google enters the fray
Apple's patent claims have so far targeted Android licensees (including Samsung, HTC and Motorola) rather than Google itself. However, most of the patents Apple has argued against Android licenses apply to the Google's Android software.
In its case against HTC, Apple argued to the ITC last August that the head of Android development at Google, Andy Rubin, "began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."
Apple's brief added that "it is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be 'highly customizable and expandable' as HTC touts." Apple is also claiming infringement of the '263 patent against Motorola.
At the end of January, Judge Posner interpreted the '263 patent in a manner favorable to Apple's case, causing Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents to note that , "a jury is very likely to find Android to infringe the patent based on that construction but much less likely to deem the patent invalid."
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
Motorola had opposed giving Apple more information about Google's acquisition plans, arguing that Google wasn't a party to the lawsuit. "Google?s employees and documents are not within the ?possession, custody, or control? of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google?s objections," the company's attorneys argued.
I can't say that I am very well versed on this case (or the legal points in question) but this sounded like a reasonable argument from Motorola.
It seems impressive that Apple's lawyers are going to get a peek at the Google side of things from this.
This is why I am always very careful before I spend over $12 billion on anything...
I'm no lawyer, but I would guess that any patent which wins for Apple in court, but remains implemented in Android after the trial concludes would constitute willful infringement for triple damages should Apple go after Google directly.
Of course, the opposite is true as well, but I haven't heard of any Android patents being involved in any of the suits against Apple.
I'm gonna need a lot more popcorn.
Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.
Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.
A pattern? Hrm.
"Google?s employees and documents are not within the ?possession, custody, or control? of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google?s objections," the company's attorneys argued...
This is also known as the "Proview Defense" ie. the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.
Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.
Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.
A pattern? Hrm.
Yup, the Judas Pattern. Karma, as they say, is a ...
This was a good call by the judge.
Eric Schmidt better bite the pillow 'cuz Apple's goin' in dry!
Rubbish.
There's always time for lube!!!
Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.
Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.
Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.
A pattern? Hrm.
That's how all things work, or does Apple only employ just graduated students.
There are enough people who were working at xerox/microsoft/ibm/google which have made the switch and began working for Apple.
And it also works in other ways like :
Steve Jobs visits Xerox, and then Apple comes up with a mouse based gui, for instance.
Don't let the "stealing" only work one-way, because that's simply not the case in reality (for instance some samples. Luckily for us customers it works this way.
I do see the need for patents, but most software patents really slow down innovation on all sides and are not the great ideas where patent law was invented for.
And it also works in other ways like :
Steve Jobs visits Xerox, and then Apple comes up with a mouse based gui, for instance.
For which Xerox was compensated.
For which Xerox was compensated.
he never suggested otherwise.
granted it's a lot murkier a situation than "pay and go" but you can accept your simplistic representation of it all. It's the story everyone wants to hear anyways.
he never suggested otherwise.
granted it's a lot murkier a situation than "pay and go" but you can accept your simplistic representation of it all. It's the story everyone wants to hear anyways.
Were you there? How do you know that it was "murky."
The story I have heard and read consistently is that Apple paid for access with Apple stock:
http://www.mac-history.net/computer-...and-xerox-parc
Apple bought access to the PARC by means of a stock deal that seemed lucrative to the Xerox managers on the East Coast: They might buy 100,000 Apple stocks for one million dollars. Holding this admission ticket in the hand, Steve Jobs, Apple?s president Mike Scott, Bill Atkinson, and a number of members of the developing team marched up. ?I think mostly ? what we got in that hour and a half was inspiration and just sort of basically a bolstering of our convictions that a more graphical way to do things would make this business computer more accessible.?
Xerox also had its patent claims against Apple dismissed for a variety of reason.
People really forget how different the Mac and the Alto system were.
For which Xerox was compensated.
Just would like to see apple also sue for compensation instead of trying to block other products and features. That's the new twist which Apple is responsible for in the last 2 years.
Just go with a cross-licensing deal for these 'trivial' software patents. Slide-to-unlock and 'list behaviour at the end of the list' are not the dealbreakers on which customers decide which phone or tablet to buy. I do expect this would eventually lead to so many cross-licensing that the net effect will be 0.
Apple has a kind of double morale with their 'we do everything better than others and that's why people buy our products' (which the market shows to be at least partially true) and then 'don't steal little design cues or software things from us because people will not buy our products anymore if others have them as well'.
This can probably be explained by the fact these views will be of different departments within the organisation.
Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.
yea...data detectors...that's about it...and everything likely infringes this patent.
Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.
weaker case than you think...growing weaker by the case based on all known reports...time will tell if Android's Dalvik VM does indeed violate Java VM, but even if it does it's not gonna be the cut and dry 1:1 copy people like to pretend "infringe" means.
Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.
A) you're not suggesting that Apple should have a monopoly on full feature touch screen phones are you? I hope not that would be a retarded argument.
and
Also I hope you aren't suggesting that
This:
looks like this:
that would be stupid.
Were you there? How do you know that it was "murky."
The story I have heard and read consistently is that Apple paid for access with Apple stock:
http://www.mac-history.net/computer-...and-xerox-parc
Xerox also had its patent claims against Apple dismissed for a variety of reason.
No I wasn't there but I can read too...there are articles that all say Xerox was compensated in some form...but the story is murkier than "pay and go"
I guess you could've avoided this entire post if I had said that...oh wait...I did.
People really forget how different the Mac and the Alto system were.
People continuously forget how different iOS and Android really are...doesn't stop them from claiming Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS (which has been typed before on these forums)
Just would like to see apple also sue for compensation instead of trying to block other products and features. That's the new twist which Apple is responsible for in the last 2 years.
Just go with a cross-licensing deal for these 'trivial' software patents. Slide-to-unlock and 'list behaviour at the end of the list' are not the dealbreakers on which customers decide which phone or tablet to buy. I do expect this would eventually lead to so many cross-licensing that the net effect will be 0.
Apple has a kind of double morale with their 'we do everything better than others and that's why people buy our products' (which the market shows to be at least partially true) and then 'don't steal little design cues or software things from us because people will not buy our products anymore if others have them as well'.
This can probably be explained by the fact these views will be of different departments within the organisation.
I agree that the copyright and patent litigation has gotten out-of-hand. Sadly, no one seems willing to step forward in this country to try to fix the situation.
No I wasn't there but I can read too...there are articles that all say Xerox was compensated in some form...but the story is murkier than "pay and go"
I guess you could've avoided this entire post if I had said that...oh wait...I did.
Your "pay-and-go" remark was pretty transparent from where I'm sitting.
People continuously forget how different iOS and Android really are...doesn't stop them from claiming Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS (which has been typed before on these forums)
Perhaps so, but not by me. But Android did make a remarkable change in direction after the iPhone was announced from something closer to its Danger (where Rubin worked) Sidekick roots to something that looked a lot more like an iPhone.
Andy Ruben works for Apple then heads up Android development for Google and incorporates Apple IP.
Eric Schmidt head up JAVA development at SUN and then SUN/JAVA IP ends up in Android.
Eric Schmidt is on Apple board of directors while developing iOS and suddenly Android goes from being a blackberry clone to a full feature touch screen phone.
A pattern? Hrm.
Eric Schmidt was on the Board of Directors at Apple. That's an executive position made up of some people who are actually from outside the company. They deal with policies, objectives and budgets.
Do those guys really get to go down into the labs and see ANY of the secret stuff Apple is working on?
I seriously doubt that.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone when the rest of us did... at the keynote.
You know how secretive Apple is... I don't think anyone knew what was going on with the "iPhone" project except those who were actually involved in it. The fewer people... the better.
Also... you know how products have codenames inside the company? That's for exactly this reason. I doubt anyone muttered the word "iPhone" in the halls of Cupertino prior to January 9, 2007.
BTW... I'm not defending Schmidt... but I seriously doubt Steve Jobs let ANY person, or CEO of another company, into their secret labs to snoop around...
The Board of Directors meet upstairs in the boardroom... not downstairs in Engineering...