Apple attempting to salvage lawsuit against Motorola
Attorneys for Apple will appear in a Chicago court today in an effort to keep a patent infringement lawsuit against Google's Motorola Mobility alive.
Apple still hopes it can win an order to bar sales of some of Motorola's phones. The company will make its case in front of Federal Judge Richard Posner today, according to Reuters.
Posner originally canceled Apple's patent infringement trial against Motorola earlier this month after he concluded that Apple had not been able to prove any injury. But the judge gave Apple a second chance last week, awarding the company the injunction hearing set to take place today.
Pretrial rulings by Posner eliminated nearly all of Motorola's claims of patent infringement against Apple. But more of Apple's own allegations against Motorola remained in the suit.
Posner's decision is viewed as important for Apple, because it could set the stage for the company to negotiate favorable licensing agreements with Motorola and other Android-based smartphone makers.
Both Motorola and Apple were required by Posner to submit their legal arguments in advance, under seal, on Monday, ahead of Wednesday's hearing before the judge.
The patent infringement claims between Apple and Motorola began in court before the company was acquired by Android maker Google last year for $12.5 billion. That deal became finalized last month, officially putting Google in the smartphone hardware business.
However, Google plans to operate its acquisition as a separate business that will remain a licensee of Android. That's in an attempt to placate Google's Android partners, like Samsung and HTC, by not giving Motorola an unfair advantage.
The courtroom showdown in Motorola will be a precursor to Apple's legal battle with Samsung, set to start on July 30 in San Jose, Calif. The two companies were ordered by a judge to engage in settlement talks before the trial officially begins, but they could not reach an agreement in those talks held in San Francisco in late May.
Apple still hopes it can win an order to bar sales of some of Motorola's phones. The company will make its case in front of Federal Judge Richard Posner today, according to Reuters.
Posner originally canceled Apple's patent infringement trial against Motorola earlier this month after he concluded that Apple had not been able to prove any injury. But the judge gave Apple a second chance last week, awarding the company the injunction hearing set to take place today.
Pretrial rulings by Posner eliminated nearly all of Motorola's claims of patent infringement against Apple. But more of Apple's own allegations against Motorola remained in the suit.
Posner's decision is viewed as important for Apple, because it could set the stage for the company to negotiate favorable licensing agreements with Motorola and other Android-based smartphone makers.
Both Motorola and Apple were required by Posner to submit their legal arguments in advance, under seal, on Monday, ahead of Wednesday's hearing before the judge.
The patent infringement claims between Apple and Motorola began in court before the company was acquired by Android maker Google last year for $12.5 billion. That deal became finalized last month, officially putting Google in the smartphone hardware business.
However, Google plans to operate its acquisition as a separate business that will remain a licensee of Android. That's in an attempt to placate Google's Android partners, like Samsung and HTC, by not giving Motorola an unfair advantage.
The courtroom showdown in Motorola will be a precursor to Apple's legal battle with Samsung, set to start on July 30 in San Jose, Calif. The two companies were ordered by a judge to engage in settlement talks before the trial officially begins, but they could not reach an agreement in those talks held in San Francisco in late May.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
But the judge gave Apple a second chance last week, awarding the company the injunction hearing set to take place today.
Pretrial rulings by Posner eliminated nearly all of Motorola's claims of patent infringement against Apple. But more of Apple's own allegations against Motorola remained in the suit.
Then Apple's job is clear: keep pushing. The opportunity is there.
Which Motorola product(s) are to be included in the injunction?
I saw yesterday that Apple is still pursuing legal actions against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is no longer being sold in the US. Are the current actions being taken against current Moto products, or products that were introduced and discontinued already?
Edit: Here they are: Apple's suit names a number of popular Motorola handsets as infringing. Those named in the complaint are the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1 and Charm 1.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/30/apple_countersues_motorola_over_multi_touch_iphone_patents.html
What will Apple gain if they ban sales of these phones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
[... ]
I saw yesterday that Apple is still pursuing legal actions against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is no longer being sold in the US. Are the current actions being taken against current Moto products, or products that were introduced and discontinued already?
Edit: Here they are: Apple's suit names a number of popular Motorola handsets as infringing. Those named in the complaint are the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1 and Charm 1.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/30/apple_countersues_motorola_over_multi_touch_iphone_patents.html
What will Apple gain if they ban sales of these phones?
I am not certain but I think if Motorola Mobility has been found to infringe significiantly enough, Apple will get to claim damages retroactively... they'll basically work out an agreement of XX dollars per device sold or something like that. This jugement would also then permit them to move forward onto the newer devices, and Motorola will have to go before the court again and argue for the new devices.
Or in the latter case, Apple would likely negotiate a license fee going forward instead of a court case.
Slightly off topic but:
It's surprising to me that Apple innovated so much, and yet Microsoft has been the one who has succeeded on licensing deals the best so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr
I am not certain but I think if Motorola Mobility has been found to infringe significiantly enough, Apple will get to claim damages retroactively... they'll basically work out an agreement of XX dollars per device sold or something like that.
Two things:
Posner has already said that neither side has demonstrated damages properly.
The current hearing will be deciding on the issuance of an injunction, and so no damages will be calculated. Seemingly, Moto will, at worst, be enjoined from selling obsolete hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr
It's surprising to me that Apple innovated so much, and yet Microsoft has been the one who has succeeded on licensing deals the best so far.
It helps to remember that Microsoft's strategy was, and still is ( to a lesser degree ) to have their "stuff" placed on everyone's computer, regardless of who was the manufacturer, while Apple is interested in selling their own product. That automatically means Microsoft has to be as interested in all the manufacturers, not just themselves .... hence, more licensing agreements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
With next to nothing gained, I'd be curious to know how much money Apple has expended on offensive litigation and counter-suits. It's probably time to replace Mr Sewell and re-think the legal strategies.
I wonder if Sewall is to blame, or if he was just following Steve's marching orders.
If the former, can him. If the later, kill the present strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Assuming Sewell was given the thermonuclear legal strategy from Steve Jobs and continued by Tim Cook, I would agree that he should keep his job provided that he informed Jobs & Cook that the aggressive litigation strategy would likely result in costly stalemates. I doubt that he did.
Yep. There is more that we don't know. If he used the strategy as an excuse to lard his department, and if he ran too far too fast, he will have a lot of explaining to do. But you don't get to his position unless you are very good at the CYA game. So who knows? Maybe an asst. VP will take the ax for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Assuming Sewell was given the thermonuclear legal strategy from Steve Jobs and continued by Tim Cook, I would agree that he should keep his job provided that he informed Jobs & Cook that the aggressive litigation strategy would likely result in costly stalemates. I doubt that he did.
My guess is that the strategy will evolve somewhat under Tim Cook. First of all, judges across the world seem to be a bit skeptical about these kinds of suits, no matter who brings them. No one has really landed a heavy blow yet. Second, the Oracle ruling shows that juries are capable of passing judgment, and understanding complex issues. Likewise they may be skeptical of plaintiffs. Third, Apple is already starting to diversify its supply chain. LG makes the new Retina Display for the MacBook Pro, for instance. Therefore, the leverage value with Samsung may be less important. Fourth, Apple is relatively patent-poor in the mobile device space. Perhaps if they buy someone like Nokia for their patent portfolio they could change that, but they passed up on Motorola, and Nokia's obvious partner would be Microsoft.
Tim Cook pretty much needs to let the existing lawsuits run their course, but we might see a subtle change in tact over the next few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM
Tim Cook pretty much needs to let the existing lawsuits run their course, but we might see a subtle change in tact over the next few years.
A subtle change intact?
A subtle change in tactics?
A subtle change in tack?
First, they can collect retroactive damages.
Second, Apple's overriding objective is to get the competitors to stop copying their products. If they can get Motorola to stop copying their products, they've accomplished their goals. It seems to have worked with Samsung - whose latest phones are no longer slavish copies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM
My guess is that the strategy will evolve somewhat under Tim Cook. First of all, judges across the world seem to be a bit skeptical about these kinds of suits, no matter who brings them. No one has really landed a heavy blow yet. Second, the Oracle ruling shows that juries are capable of passing judgment, and understanding complex issues. Likewise they may be skeptical of plaintiffs. Third, Apple is already starting to diversify its supply chain. LG makes the new Retina Display for the MacBook Pro, for instance. Therefore, the leverage value with Samsung may be less important. Fourth, Apple is relatively patent-poor in the mobile device space. Perhaps if they buy someone like Nokia for their patent portfolio they could change that, but they passed up on Motorola, and Nokia's obvious partner would be Microsoft.
Tim Cook pretty much needs to let the existing lawsuits run their course, but we might see a subtle change in tact over the next few years.
I don't think this is as much of a war against Samsung as you may believe. It depends what technology they intend to use. IPS is pretty mature overall, and it's usable in marketing. Take a look at this site http://tftcentral.co.uk/ ; They keep track of panels used in various displays. You'll notice the same or similar SKUs at times in very expensive and moderately priced displays. For the most part the panels have really become a commodity. In higher quality displays unless we're talking about (maybe) medical or broadcast displays, essentially those with a specialized purpose, you pretty much find Samsung and LG panels on any computer display in the $700-$5k range. The others have pretty much gone away. It's just that their listings go back a number of years. Since I'm getting off track, I'll mention that I've never seen Samsung produce an IPS display. Hitachi, NEC, and Mitsubishi basically got out of this market at least when it comes to computer displays. I think this is just business as usual. They decided to go with IPS. It markets well. Beyond that whatever design was used in the ipad may not be feasible at this point in a macbook pro.
Apple has no interest in monetary damages from this case. Zero. They want Moto to be forced into modifying certain functions on specific Moto handsets, which Apple expects would mean a degraded user-experience. Moto instead is arguing that if a monetary award can mitigate any possible damage to Apple that might be found then an injunction (which likely forces the changes Apple wants) would not be an appropriate remedy.