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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 76
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member


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

  • Reply 22 of 76
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    gtr wrote: »
    Perhaps "unknowing licensee" would be more accurate...

    Ohh they knew
  • Reply 23 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 76
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Ohh they knew

    No, most people don't know.

    Much thought stops after the word 'free'...
  • Reply 25 of 76
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,582member

    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.

  • Reply 26 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,296member

    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

  • Reply 27 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 28 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,296member

    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?

  • Reply 29 of 76
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    gtr wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 30 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ...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

    [SIZE=8px]It's usually about here that you try to change the argument isn't it?[/SIZE]

    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.
  • Reply 31 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »

    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?
  • Reply 33 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 34 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 76
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member
    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[/QUOTE]

    If you don't believe me, Florian Mueller later noted the same thing. [URL=http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-other.html]He wrote in a blog[/URL]:

    [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[/QUOTE]
  • Reply 36 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 37 of 76
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    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." image

  • Reply 38 of 76
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kdarling wrote: »
    Motorola filed first against Apple...

    Everything else is irrelevant.
  • Reply 39 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    kdarling wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 76
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.