FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. Apparently the feeling of a few folks is that if they aren't suing then all those patents must be worthless? Strange reasoning. Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?
FWIW, there's no evidence Capt. Edward Smith took command of the HMS Titanic with the intent of ever smashing it into an iceberg.
Well, no. Motorola has all the right in the world to claim theft of intellectual property as long as their rights to do so haven’t expired, just like Apple does.
FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. Apparently the feeling of a few folks is that if they aren't suing then all those patents must be worthless? Strange reasoning. Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?
Personally I see it as a defensive measure, both from the standpoint of discouraging new patent suits overall and specifically keeping Motorola from starting a fresh round of lawsuits against competitors including other Android licensees. IMHO the MM patents may even have played a part in Apple's odd and unexplained 10 year cross-patent agreement with HTC last December. Google has no past history of suing over IP claims and haven't ever given any indication of plans to change that despite the contrary claims from some here.
Definitely looks like the Motorola Lawyers screwed up on this one, it looks like their patent applications were not broad enough and Apple implementation was not the same as Motorola's. Something else to consider is Apple may have looked up all these patents and just designed around them which can be done if you understand the patent. The more specific a patent is sometime the easier it is to design around them.
Personally I see it as a defensive measure, both from the standpoint of discouraging new patent suits overall and specifically keeping Motorola from starting a fresh round of lawsuits against competitors including other Android licensees. IMHO the MM patents may even have played a part in Apple's odd and unexplained 10 year cross-patent agreement with HTC last December. Google has no past history of suing over IP claims and haven't ever given any indication of plans to change that despite the contrary claims from some here.
HTC chose to settle with Apple on mutually agreeable terms. That's it !
Google and Motorola play no part in that negotiation, other than the known lawsuits.
Google and Motorola certainly have a record of suing Apple over IP claims. The failed SEP one and this one are examples. There may be more in the future.
Definitely looks like the Motorola Lawyers screwed up on this one, it looks like their patent applications were not broad enough and Apple implementation was not the same as Motorola's. Something else to consider is Apple may have looked up all these patents and just designed around them which can be done if you understand the patent. The more specific a patent is sometime the easier it is to design around them.
MM was denied not because of the patent claims but because of a technical failure regarding an "injunction". For the ITC to issue an exclusion order (injunction), the only infringement cure they can offer by law, the complainant must prove a "domestic industry" for the claimed property. In other words they have to prove they produce a product that makes use of the claimed IP or at the minimum show revenue from licensing of that patent.. That second part is quite new by the way, just established by an Appeals Court ruling in the last year involving Nokia and an NPE. In this case Motorola cited the Droid 2 as practicing the patents claims. The Appeals Court ruled that the Droid 2 did not use the asserted patent claims in that product and therefor MM failed the 337 "domestic industry" requirement.
Simply going to the ITC and establishing that someone is using your patent without permission is insufficient without showing that it's harming your own commercial efforts. Motorola Mobility was saved by the same "domestic industry" reasoning last year when Microsoft went after an ITC exclusion order on Motorola devices. http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2013/10/10/motorola-escapes-microsoft-itc-domestic-industry-requirement/
And India's election regulator drops plan to partner Google. Of course, GOOG is up on that news.
Fallout from the NSA's spy campaign reveal will be handicapping a lot of US companies in overseas business deals. Cisco and Google won't be the only ones. I suspect there may be quite of lot of economic harm due to what the NSA has been doing.
HTC chose to settle with Apple on mutually agreeable terms. That's it !
Google and Motorola play no part in that negotiation, other than the known lawsuits.
Google and Motorola certainly have a record of suing Apple over IP claims. The failed SEP one and this one are examples. There may be more in the future.
Google IP infringement suits against Apple? Zero
Apple infringement suits against Google? Zero
New active IP infringement lawsuits filed by Motorola Mobility against Apple since the Google takeover? Zero
New infringement suits filed by Apple against MM since Google bought them? Zero
Possible influence of Motorola IP in the HTC/Apple all-inclusive license agreement? Do a little research looking at a couple of very odd and unexplained legal happenings involving Apple and MM in the three months prior to the cross licensing agreement.
FWIW there's no evidence that Google bought MM with the intent of ever suing any of it's competitors using their patents. Apparently the feeling of a few folks is that if they aren't suing then all those patents must be worthless? Strange reasoning. Even Apple who has never passed a courtroom they didn't like has sued on only a very tiny number of the thousands they control. Does that make all the others worthless?
Do you write this stuff yourself or get emails sent to you with the stuff Google want you to post?
Google IP infringement suits against Apple? Zero
Apple infringement suits against Google? Zero
New active IP infringement lawsuits filed by Motorola Mobility against Apple since the Google takeover? Zero
New infringement suits filed by Apple against MM since Google bought them? Zero
Possible influence of Motorola IP in the HTC/Apple all-inclusive license agreement? Do a little research looking at a couple of very odd and unexplained legal happenings involving Apple and MM in the three months prior to the cross licensing agreement.
Zero ? ^_^
They lost. Losses also count. If Google are against IP suits, they would have pulled the cases immediately like how Samsung did it with their SEP cases in EU.
As for HTC suit, it's useless to tell me odd things happen. HTC settled. They said it works better for them to do so.
Personally I see it as a defensive measure, both from the standpoint of discouraging new patent suits overall and specifically keeping Motorola from starting a fresh round of lawsuits against competitors including other Android licensees. IMHO the MM patents may even have played a part in Apple's odd and unexplained 10 year cross-patent agreement with HTC last December. Google has no past history of suing over IP claims and haven't ever given any indication of plans to change that despite the contrary claims from some here.
I wonder what Google would do if I set up a website in which I accepted searches from the general public, queried google.com with those searches, stripped out the ads and blocked Google Analytics, and served up the results to my "customers." Perhaps Google has no history of suing over IP claims because no other company has been as brazenly cavalier about competitors' IP as Google has been.
Guess if you can't argue then snipe. I'm used to it so no biggie.
How can you interpret a genuine question as a snipe? If you have zero connection with Google just say so. I don't see a need to argue with constant anti Apple comments on an Apple blog. I come here for information and shared enthusiasm and find the trolls a pain in the ass. There are plenty of pro Android web sites you could spend time on and be amongst friends, so i don't get the point of your being here, erudite as you are, unless with a motive.
You must have missed the past half dozen times I've answered similar queries here. Nope, no connection to Google at all. Not even a share of stock. Now a question for you. What anti-Apple comments from me can you point to?
On the contrary I have a lot of respect for and interest in Apple. Perhaps you're mistaking my not joining in on "fun with FUD" as dissing Apple's success. Unlike a few I don't think its necessary to make stuff up in the mistaken belief it makes Apple look better. Those that do so are selling them short IMO.
How can you interpret a genuine question as a snipe? If you have zero connection with Google just say so. I don't see a need to argue with constant anti Apple comments on an Apple blog. I come here for information and shared enthusiasm and find the trolls a pain in the ass. There are plenty of pro Android web sites you could spend time on and be amongst friends, so i don't get the point of your being here, erudite as you are, unless with a motive.
May be you can ask him if he uses any Apple products.
Comments
Bloomberg news said "Apple wins appeal ..." by Susan Decker.
Quite.
Gartner says that PC sales are dropping even faster than feared, while Mac sales are up strongly.
Therefore, MSFT and INTC are up, while AAPL is down by $5, again.
Is this some kind of "sell-on-news", or market contrarianism, or inside info re Apple we're not seeing?
Or pure market stupidity?
Wolves herding sheep.
FWIW, there's no evidence Capt. Edward Smith took command of the HMS Titanic with the intent of ever smashing it into an iceberg.
Well, no. Motorola has all the right in the world to claim theft of intellectual property as long as their rights to do so haven’t expired, just like Apple does.
They just happen to be morons and wrong, is all.
Google bought Moto as an act of kindness.
Definitely looks like the Motorola Lawyers screwed up on this one, it looks like their patent applications were not broad enough and Apple implementation was not the same as Motorola's. Something else to consider is Apple may have looked up all these patents and just designed around them which can be done if you understand the patent. The more specific a patent is sometime the easier it is to design around them.
HTC chose to settle with Apple on mutually agreeable terms. That's it !
Google and Motorola play no part in that negotiation, other than the known lawsuits.
Google and Motorola certainly have a record of suing Apple over IP claims. The failed SEP one and this one are examples. There may be more in the future.
MM was denied not because of the patent claims but because of a technical failure regarding an "injunction". For the ITC to issue an exclusion order (injunction), the only infringement cure they can offer by law, the complainant must prove a "domestic industry" for the claimed property. In other words they have to prove they produce a product that makes use of the claimed IP or at the minimum show revenue from licensing of that patent.. That second part is quite new by the way, just established by an Appeals Court ruling in the last year involving Nokia and an NPE. In this case Motorola cited the Droid 2 as practicing the patents claims. The Appeals Court ruled that the Droid 2 did not use the asserted patent claims in that product and therefor MM failed the 337 "domestic industry" requirement.
Simply going to the ITC and establishing that someone is using your patent without permission is insufficient without showing that it's harming your own commercial efforts. Motorola Mobility was saved by the same "domestic industry" reasoning last year when Microsoft went after an ITC exclusion order on Motorola devices.
http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2013/10/10/motorola-escapes-microsoft-itc-domestic-industry-requirement/
Yea, combine this news with the great Mac sales.... the stock never had a chance...
Wolves herding sheep.
And India's election regulator drops plan to partner Google. Of course, GOOG is up on that news.
Fallout from the NSA's spy campaign reveal will be handicapping a lot of US companies in overseas business deals. Cisco and Google won't be the only ones. I suspect there may be quite of lot of economic harm due to what the NSA has been doing.
If GOOG stock is really up because of any specific news it might be this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/google-x-staff-meet-with-fda-pointing-toward-new-device.html
IMO there's no rhyme or reason for most of the up and down swings which is why I tend to avoid the stock market.
Google IP infringement suits against Apple? Zero
Apple infringement suits against Google? Zero
New active IP infringement lawsuits filed by Motorola Mobility against Apple since the Google takeover? Zero
New infringement suits filed by Apple against MM since Google bought them? Zero
Possible influence of Motorola IP in the HTC/Apple all-inclusive license agreement? Do a little research looking at a couple of very odd and unexplained legal happenings involving Apple and MM in the three months prior to the cross licensing agreement.
Do you write this stuff yourself or get emails sent to you with the stuff Google want you to post?
Guess if you can't argue then snipe. I'm used to it so no biggie.
Zero ? ^_^
They lost. Losses also count. If Google are against IP suits, they would have pulled the cases immediately like how Samsung did it with their SEP cases in EU.
As for HTC suit, it's useless to tell me odd things happen. HTC settled. They said it works better for them to do so.
Personally I see it as a defensive measure, both from the standpoint of discouraging new patent suits overall and specifically keeping Motorola from starting a fresh round of lawsuits against competitors including other Android licensees. IMHO the MM patents may even have played a part in Apple's odd and unexplained 10 year cross-patent agreement with HTC last December. Google has no past history of suing over IP claims and haven't ever given any indication of plans to change that despite the contrary claims from some here.
I wonder what Google would do if I set up a website in which I accepted searches from the general public, queried google.com with those searches, stripped out the ads and blocked Google Analytics, and served up the results to my "customers." Perhaps Google has no history of suing over IP claims because no other company has been as brazenly cavalier about competitors' IP as Google has been.
How can you interpret a genuine question as a snipe? If you have zero connection with Google just say so. I don't see a need to argue with constant anti Apple comments on an Apple blog. I come here for information and shared enthusiasm and find the trolls a pain in the ass. There are plenty of pro Android web sites you could spend time on and be amongst friends, so i don't get the point of your being here, erudite as you are, unless with a motive.
On the contrary I have a lot of respect for and interest in Apple. Perhaps you're mistaking my not joining in on "fun with FUD" as dissing Apple's success. Unlike a few I don't think its necessary to make stuff up in the mistaken belief it makes Apple look better. Those that do so are selling them short IMO.
How can you interpret a genuine question as a snipe? If you have zero connection with Google just say so. I don't see a need to argue with constant anti Apple comments on an Apple blog. I come here for information and shared enthusiasm and find the trolls a pain in the ass. There are plenty of pro Android web sites you could spend time on and be amongst friends, so i don't get the point of your being here, erudite as you are, unless with a motive.
May be you can ask him if he uses any Apple products.