Apple wins injunction against Motorola in Germany over photo gallery patent

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014


Apple on Thursday earned a key victory in a German patent infringement suit against Motorola Mobility, earning the iPhone maker an injunction against a number of Motorola devices.



Judge Dr. Peter Guntz ruled that all Motorola devices implementing , entitled "Portable Electronic Device for Photo Management," are in violation, granting Apple an injunction against them. According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Apple could even choose to require Motorola to destroy any infringing products in its possession in Germany and recall infringing products from German retailers at its own expense.



The patent was originally awarded in September of 2010, and signs that the German court would side with Apple first surfaced in a hearing in December. It's likely that Apple's victory will require Motorola to modify its software and work around Apple's original ideas.



A similar turn of events occurred last August, when Apple won a preliminary injunction against Samsung in a Dutch court. Samsung also modified its software to avoid infringing on Apple's patent.



Though Apple's win isn't a "knockout blow" against Motorola, it could have a detrimental effect on the company's products as it modifies its software to avoid infringement.



"The fact of the matter is that Motorola will keep selling devices that will continue to have a photo gallery, though any workaround will definitely degrade the user experience," Mueller wrote. "As a Samsung customer affected by an update following the Dutch injunction, I have experienced this myself."



Friday will conclude a busy week in court for Apple, as the Mannheim Regional Curt is set to decide on a lawsuit against Samsung over Apple's "slide to unlock" patent, as well as a Samsung suit against Apple related to wireless 3G standards.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,204member
    Hooray!
  • Reply 2 of 38
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Good.



    Now how about that iCloud stuff?
  • Reply 3 of 38
    darenwdarenw Posts: 14member
    Much gnashing of teeth at Amphitheater Parkway.
  • Reply 4 of 38
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Good.



    Now how about that iCloud stuff?



    I imagine they could leverage some of these wins to deal with the iCloud issue. Of course, that's not the way SJ would play it, as he wanted to go "thermonuclear" on them.
  • Reply 5 of 38
    I do not understand how zooming in on a picture can be patented. Is the patent the way to zoom in on a picture or the fact that you can zoom in on the picture?
  • Reply 6 of 38
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MatthewGavin View Post


    I do not understand how zooming in on a picture can be patented. Is the patent the way to zoom in on a picture or the fact that you can zoom in on the picture?



    No, of course not. It's just the means by which it's done.
  • Reply 7 of 38
    hungoverhungover Posts: 602member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    No, of course not. It's just the means by which it's done.



    Are we talking about pinch to zoom?
  • Reply 8 of 38
    Google totally flushed 12 billion down the toilette, Motorola was the worst purchase ever.



    This is delicious, I would be right out of control pissed off if I were a major shareholder.
  • Reply 9 of 38
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hungover View Post


    Are we talking about pinch to zoom?



    I? think we're talking about an implementation thereof and not the concept itself. I'm not sure, though. Patentese is, by design, difficult to read.



    Oh, wait, no, it's gallery, so I think it's the means by which gallery navigation is undertaken, not pinch to zoom at all.



    Here's the relevant part, I think.



  • Reply 10 of 38
    ko024ko024 Posts: 68member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post


    Google totally flushed 12 billion down the toilette, Motorola was the worst purchase ever.



    This is delicious, I would be right out of control pissed off if I were a major shareholder.



    I honestly was really confused by google's purchase of motorola. I know they needed patents but dont you think there were some high up people looking at the reality of the situation and whether it actually benefited google or not? It seems like they made a rash decision after they lost out in the nortel patents which they claimed "they werent really trying to get anyway"....



    I know a lot of people complain about all the patent related business on these sites, but I myself find it fascinating and cant wait to see how this all plays out....
  • Reply 11 of 38
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ko024 View Post


    I honestly was really confused by google's purchase of motorola. I know they needed patents but dont you think there were some high up people looking at the reality of the situation and whether it actually benefited google or not? It seems like they made a rash decision after they lost out in the nortel patents which they claimed "they werent really trying to get anyway"....



    I know a lot of people complain about all the patent related business on these sites, but I myself find it fascinating and cant wait to see how this all plays out....



    There was more involved than just the patents.



    - Google would get $3 B in accumulated losses, reducing the purchase price by that amount

    - Access to the set top box market. Google was not particularly successful with the Google TV, so this gets them access to the entire TV market

    - Other electronic devices. I could picture Android on your home phone or electronic home control devices and a small touch screen.



    Granted, I don't think it was a great idea (with the main problem being that Google would be competing with its customers and customers would have every reason to find an alternative, including branching Android), but there are plausible explanations.
  • Reply 12 of 38
    pridonpridon Posts: 81member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ko024 View Post


    I honestly was really confused by google's purchase of motorola. I know they needed patents but dont you think there were some high up people looking at the reality of the situation and whether it actually benefited google or not? It seems like they made a rash decision after they lost out in the nortel patents which they claimed "they werent really trying to get anyway"....



    I know a lot of people complain about all the patent related business on these sites, but I myself find it fascinating and cant wait to see how this all plays out....



    MMi hoodwinked Google into beliving that they could stop use MMI FRAND patents to extort Apple into cross licensing iphone Apple unique patents. Greatest scam since AOL bought Tme Warner with its inflated stock. Anyone wonder why MMi wanted cash rather than GOOG shares.
  • Reply 13 of 38
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    There was more involved than just the patents.



    - Google would get $3 B in accumulated losses, reducing the purchase price by that amount

    - Access to the set top box market. Google was not particularly successful with the Google TV, so this gets them access to the entire TV market

    - Other electronic devices. I could picture Android on your home phone or electronic home control devices and a small touch screen.



    Granted, I don't think it was a great idea (with the main problem being that Google would be competing with its customers and customers would have every reason to find an alternative, including branching Android), but there are plausible explanations.



    Google knew they couldn't get their hands on Motorola Solutions--the real meat of the Motorola family post break up.
  • Reply 14 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I? think we're talking about an implementation thereof and not the concept itself. I'm not sure, though. Patentese is, by design, difficult to read.



    Oh, wait, no, it's gallery, so I think it's the means by which gallery navigation is undertaken, not pinch to zoom at all.



    Here's the relevant part, I think.







    What does that say?
  • Reply 15 of 38
    If it's the same one that they used against Samsung, I think it's this:







    The (U.S. version of the) patent application is 58 pages long. You can see it here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20080052945
  • Reply 16 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MatthewGavin View Post


    What does that say?



    It's a little easier to understand if you read the article at Foss Patents. As I understand it, the relevant portion of the patent covers the action of zooming in on a photo and still being able to scroll to the next photo if you pull the image far enough. Foss said it only applies to the "zoomed in gallery" and not the "zoomed out gallery," so basically Motorola just has to take out the code that allows swiping to the next picture while zoomed in on the first picture.
  • Reply 17 of 38
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pridon View Post


    MMi hoodwinked Google into beliving that they could stop use MMI FRAND patents to extort Apple into cross licensing iphone Apple unique patents. Greatest scam since AOL bought Tme Warner with its inflated stock. Anyone wonder why MMi wanted cash rather than GOOG shares.



    It wasn't just hoodwinking. It was extortion as well. MMI loudly and publicly threatened to sue Google using those same patent. The $12.5 billion was partly "protection money" against such a lawsuit.



    Google fell for it, bought MMI in a panic without doing due diligence, and now they've got a $12.5 billion boat anchor.
  • Reply 18 of 38
    srangersranger Posts: 469member
    Google has already fixed this in the latest OS....
  • Reply 19 of 38
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


    It's a little easier to understand if you read the article at Foss Patents. As I understand it, the relevant portion of the patent covers the action of zooming in on a photo and still being able to scroll to the next photo if you pull the image far enough. Foss said it only applies to the "zoomed in gallery" and not the "zoomed out gallery," so basically Motorola just has to take out the code that allows swiping to the next picture while zoomed in on the first picture.



    Well yeah they can just take it out, but it makes it less user friendly and reduces the user experience. That's Apple's goal.
  • Reply 20 of 38
    Quote:

    Though Apple's win isn't a "knockout blow" against Motorola...



    Wake me when there's a knockout blow against Motorola.
Sign In or Register to comment.