ITC rules Motorola did not violate Apple patents [u]
Apple's worldwide battle against Google's Android platform was dealt a blow as the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Motorola's Droid line of smartphones do not violate Apple's patents [updated with statement from Motorola].
Update: "We are pleased with today's favorable outcome for Motorola Mobility," Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, said in a statement. "Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to develop technology and build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio. We are proud to leverage this broad and deep portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience."
The ITC's preliminary decision on Friday, which must still be passed by the entire six-members of the commission, to a complaint first filed in October 2010 by Apple that alleged Motorola violated several of the iPhone maker's patents, reports CNET.
In the original complaint, Apple said that Motorola's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X and other smartphones and software infringed on certain existing multitouch patents.
If the Cupertino, Calif., company won the case, Motorola would have suffered a product import ban similar to Samsung's German injunction. The decision was initially planned for November 2011, but the ITC pushed back the date saying that a final ruling would be announced in March.
Motorola's win may give Google a direct advantage in the future, however, as the internet search giant is in the midst of buying the once-dominating phone maker. The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether.
The news is the latest development in an ongoing war between Apple and smartphone manufacturers building handsets running Google's Android OS. A recent report said that the litigation can be seen as a potential windfall for Apple as royalties and licensing fees could possibly equate to unprecedented earnings.
Comments
Which patents were these, again? It's impossible to keep track.
haha, this. I honestly can't remember either.
Hopefully we'll see less of this this year. It got really old really fast.
For the record, anyone know if there have been any "patent violations" between WP7 devices and the iphones?
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple
<< The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether. >>
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple
I'm sorry, but this article is far from anti-apple.
<< The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether. >>
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple
Apple argues the validity of the patents. They can't argue against the patents if they pay frand. Frand patent owners should be able to charge more to users who lose their challenge while using it the same time. Apple gambled and lost.
"We are pleased with today's favorable outcome for Motorola Mobility," Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, said in a statement. "Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to develop technology and build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio. We are proud to leverage this broad and deep portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience."
"...But we'll be damned if you think we're going to respect others' IP."
"...But we'll be damned if you think we're going to respect others' IP."
Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?
Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?
We'll see how this plays out long-term. Other than that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?
logic doesn't work. try illogic.
Try this: "Pineapple cucumber zipper fish boot....understand?"
We'll see how this plays out long-term. Other than that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
You will also have to agree to disagree with the ITC and the experts that have far more information and facts about the case than any of us do..
Isn't that what the ITC decided -- that they have respected others' IP? Or are we to take your opinion on the matter, despite evidence to the contrary?
That isn't what they said at all. This does not indemnify them against any potential patent violations which seems to be your implication by simply stating " they have respected others' IP", it's very clearly stated that the ITC's preliminary decision is that Motorola didn't violate any of the Apple patents in question.
Check out Apple, Inc.'s legal history with Apple Corps for a great example of how winning one battle isn't necessary winning a war.
PS: I'm surprised people haven't jumped to the irrational conclusion that Apple has therefore violated Motorola's patents.
Is this about a specific group of patents or does it say Motorola doesn't violate any of iOS patents?
It's a specific group concerning multitouch.
And this is far from over. apple will likely appeal, or could take it to the courts. Or file a new suit based on newer patents, especially if the newer ones are more specific.
This is SOP for all companies. apple isn't doing anything that every other company hasn't and won't do. We just hear about it more because Apple is better hit fodder and thus more profitable for sites to talk about
Which patents were these, again? It's impossible to keep track.
Edit: never mind
<< The company recently won an injunction against 3G-capable iPhones and iPads in Germany based on an essential GPRS patent, which will force Apple to either modify its hardware or remove the feature altogether. >>
who writes this stuff? this is an ESSENTIAL PATENT. do you know what that means? it means that to avoid a anti-trust suit the patent is granted but cannot be blocked from being used in a fair manner at a fair price. they do not have to change anything. the injuction is meaningless which is why Motorola has not enforced it and why Apple did not even show up for the trial.
come on if you want to short apple stock, go to work for some one else and not fee false information to the public. i count on apple insider to not be android bias and anti-Apple
No, it means that Apple will have to pay for it's copycat practices of what someone else has invented
It's a specific group concerning multitouch.
And this is far from over. apple will likely appeal, or could take it to the courts. Or file a new suit based on newer patents, especially if the newer ones are more specific.
This is SOP for all companies. apple isn't doing anything that every other company hasn't and won't do. We just hear about it more because Apple is better hit fodder and thus more profitable for sites to talk about
Or this is an Apple fan site
For the record, anyone know if there have been any "patent violations" between WP7 devices and the iphones?
There aren't enough WP7 devices to make it worth while going after MS. :-)
Also I believe Apple and MS cross license patents. Remember Microsoft has even more patents than Apple (Only IBM has more software patents). A patent battle with MS would be very expensive.
No, it means that Apple will have to pay for it's copycat practices of what someone else has invented
you really do not have a clue what essential means do you? it is amzing just how stupid people that comment on things really are. the basic design of the GSM network is built around certain patents. these are essential to using the network. they were integrated into the system with the caviate that as essential patents the use of them cannot be denied. it has nothing to do with copying!!! the system is designed by the governments to use these patented ideas and there for every phone maker must use them or the phone will not work!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? therefore no one can be refused or over charged for the use of it. get some education before commenting!
you really do not have a clue what essential means do you? it is amzing just how stupid people that comment on things really are. the basic design of the GSM network is built around certain patents. these are essential to using the network. they were integrated into the system with the caviate that as essential patents the use of them cannot be denied. it has nothing to do with copying!!! the system is designed by the governments to use these patented ideas and there for every phone maker must use them or the phone will not work!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? therefore no one can be refused or over charged for the use of it. get some education before commenting!
You really do not have a clue as to what happened do you? it is amzing (sic) just how stupid people that comment on things really are.
Motorola originally approached Apple in 2007 and offered to license the patent on FRAND terms.
Apple refused.
Apple then drew up a different offer to license the patent under FRAND rates going forward, but included a clause that allowed them to contest the validity of the patent in court.
Motorola then claimed that the clause amounted to special treatment, and thus was not FRAND. They also claimed that because Apple refused to license the FRAND license prior, the time period they were in violation is not subject to FRAND terms.
The German courts agreed with Motorola.
So the fact that its an essential patent not the issue in this case. Apple refused the FRAND offer and wanted a special clause inserted in their license (i.e. NOT fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory). DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Therefore, they cannot claim a FRAND defense. get some education before commenting!