Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Summarizing the Apple-Android Patent Battle

Posted by Soulskill on from the technolegal-detritus dept.

FlorianMueller writes "Apple's patent dispute with Motorola is one of the biggest legal battles going on at the moment. Apple, which is also entangled in litigation with Nokia and HTC, recently beefed up its legal team, but it also keeps throwing in ever more patents. Apple made important court filings last Wednesday and Thursday. The bottom line: Apple now asserts 24 patents against Motorola, which uses 18 patents in claims against Apple. 21 of Apple's infringement allegations relate to Android, 3 to Motorola set-top boxes and DVRs. Motorola targets the whole range of Apple products." Mueller followed up the above article with an excellent visualization of how the patents, companies, and courts intersect.

31 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Simple by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's all about establishing a nasty, thick web of patents not covered by RAND to raise the barrier to entry impossibly high.

    This is why I criticize Apple's walled garden, despite not owning one. They're very, very interested in making impossible for those of us who don't want to buy in to actually have a choice.

    1. Re:Simple by Tharsman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I understand the PDF in the article properly, Apple only went after HTC. Motorola then jumped Apple for other reasons and Apple countered. If Apple was initiating all the lawsuits, I'd say this was true, but that does not seem to be the case.

    2. Re:Simple by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 2

      Yeah, who are they to think that just because they invest literally billions of dollars in making the technologies work they should expect any kind of return?

    3. Re:Simple by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 2

      It's all about establishing a nasty, thick web of patents not covered by RAND to raise the barrier to entry impossibly high.

      This is why I criticize Apple's walled garden, despite not owning one. They're very, very interested in making impossible for those of us who don't want to buy in to actually have a choice.

      Wow. Apple is the reason there isn't a tidal wave of smart phones smashing on us, and a wall of tablets bearing down in the distance? Or Apple IS the reason? Good luck weaseling out of that one.

  2. Summary: by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple wants to own the next computer/consumer space. Google wants to own it, too. Rather than letting consumers make the decision, Apple will try to get the courts to decide for them. Easier to sway a single judge - or, at most, 12 jurors - than the entire consuming public.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Summary: by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That would totally explain why Motorola sued Apple first. No, wait, it wouldn't at all. Nokia also took the first swing in that scuffle as well. The only large recent suit where Apple instigated matters was against HTC. I don't think things are quite the way you paint them to be. This is all likely to end in one big cross-licensing deal where the established players carve out there own share of the market pie and keep anyone else from joining the party.

    2. Re:Summary: by walshy007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Motorola knew apple were suing already, how do you think apple counter-sued so quickly, and then amended it with more complaints later in reaction to the suit motorola put forth.

      Nokia tried for years to work with apple in regards to patents (the iphone uses many many of nokias patents mainly to do with 3g and other wireless business), apple went fuck you to nokia thus the patent battle.

      Apple is the one playing hardball here, they are doing what any profit driven company does, tries to force the competition out, by any means possible.

    3. Re:Summary: by iserlohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Motorola was pre-emptively countering as the Apple v. HTC suit is actually Apple v. Android.

      --
      :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
    4. Re:Summary: by tyrione · · Score: 3, Informative

      Motorola knew apple were suing already, how do you think apple counter-sued so quickly, and then amended it with more complaints later in reaction to the suit motorola put forth.

      Nokia tried for years to work with apple in regards to patents (the iphone uses many many of nokias patents mainly to do with 3g and other wireless business), apple went fuck you to nokia thus the patent battle.

      Apple is the one playing hardball here, they are doing what any profit driven company does, tries to force the competition out, by any means possible.

      What alternative reality do you live in? NOKIA didn't believe the usual licensing fees were going to be enough from Apple and demanded a percentage of each device profits. Apple told them to take a long walk off a short pier and NOKIA about two years later realized they were screwed and went on the offensive. Apple counter sued. You can't counter sue if you in fact were the originator of the suing.

    5. Re:Summary: by stiggle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple refused to share with Nokia and the other members of the GSM Alliance, so Nokia told them what the terms were to license those patents if you don't want to share. Apple protested these terms as being unfair and anti-competitive as Apple wanted the same terms as those who were willing to share without offering anything in return.

      Apple wants to use everyones technology without having to pay for it while refusing to share their own technology with those they are taking from.

  3. Not mentioned Patent losses by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple lost just about their entire claim against Nokia, when half the patents they were seeking to enforce were declared invalid by the FTC, and the rest dismissed as not being infringed.

    It would be interesting to see Apple now try to enforce those patents declared invalid against Motorola et al.

    This all started when Apple refused to pay consortium of GSM patent holders fees that all other GSM manufacturers subscribe to, some how feeling the were above the law.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Not mentioned Patent losses by FlorianMueller · · Score: 3, Informative

      P.S. don't forget, for instance, that most of Apple's patents will be software patents (and therefore limited to the US)

      That's a misconception. Just look at these examples (including some of the patents Apple asserts against Android). Also, consider that Apple sued Nokia in the UK as well (a couple of months ago) over 9 European software patents.

      whereas most of the Nokia/GSM/Motorola patents will be hardware patents,

      When I publish my PDF diagrams and analysis of the Apple-Nokia dispute, you'll see that the share of software patents among Nokia's patents is far greater than you believe at this stage.

    2. Re:Not mentioned Patent losses by tyrione · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple lost just about their entire claim against Nokia, when half the patents they were seeking to enforce were declared invalid by the FTC, and the rest dismissed as not being infringed.

      It would be interesting to see Apple now try to enforce those patents declared invalid against Motorola et al.

      This all started when Apple refused to pay consortium of GSM patent holders fees that all other GSM manufacturers subscribe to, some how feeling the were above the law.

      You're delusional. Firstly, it's not the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) involved in the Nokia suing Apple and Apple counter suing case. It's the United States International Trade Commission [USITC).

      Source: USITC (pdf)

      http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_701_notice04222010sgl.pdf

      READ THE DOCUMENT. The update gives the status moved between May 31, 2011 -- August 1, 2011.

      Research seems to be a difficult commodity to come by these days.

  4. The System Is Working by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    I'm sure that each of Apple, HTC, Nokia and Motorola each independently invented the same things, that they wouldn't have invested effort in inventing if they couldn't protect forever with an exclusive monopoly, so now tech progress is protected by these patents instead of being completely logjammed. I'm sure the money spent on lawyers instead of development is promoting tech progress, not scaring away other innovators.

    And if you believe that, I'm sure that you're either a lawyer or, worse yet, a congressmember.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:The System Is Working by FlorianMueller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your sarcasm is outstanding, but since only a limited number of people have spent more time talking to politicians (not to members of US Congress, however) about software patents, here's something to consider.

      The patent system -- for better or worse -- exists the way it does. Any proposal to depart from it would be a fundamental paradigm shift in the realm of intellectual property rights, and the burden of proof is on those demanding such radical change.

      If the opponents of software patentability had a strong case that software patents really do a lot of harm and cause a lot of economic suffering (companies going out of business, having to lay off large numbers of people etc.), politicians would certainly act. But since the IT industry -- I mean companies of all sizes -- with only a few exceptions doesn't take action against those patents, it's impossible for a non-programmer politician to conclude that there's a need for abolition.

      You can't win a political debate over a matter of economic policy unless you have business arguments. In this case, for abolition to succeed there has to be irrefutable evidence of harm. If there were harm (other than people shaking their heads at the things that often get patented), company CEOs (from companies of all sizes) would take political action. Since that isn't the case, it looks to the average politician like there are just some people who have ideological/philosophical objections to software patents, and no one cares whether those objections are right or wrong. All that matters is what the economy wants and needs.

    2. Re:The System Is Working by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that each of Apple, HTC, Nokia and Motorola each independently invented the same things, that they wouldn't have invested effort in inventing if they couldn't protect forever with an exclusive monopoly, so now tech progress is protected by these patents instead of being completely logjammed. I'm sure the money spent on lawyers instead of development is promoting tech progress, not scaring away other innovators.

      I know the system seems biased, but these companies probably can and do afford more research dollars than most others in the industry, so it's not unreasonable for them to have the larger patent portfolios. What you really have to look at is if these companies had absolutely no incentive to let any innovation in the open for fear of it being jacked. That is a whole lot of research effort being locked up. Money spent defending/attacking patents would be spent reverse engineering, and duplicating research. Probably somewhere in the middle is ideal. These behemoths will always be squabbling over something though, high value patents, or each other's secret sauce.

      Not like you can't do original, independent research and sell it to whichever one hates the others most. You'd be competing with really big research budgets though, what would you expect? It's how the game is played.

    3. Re:The System Is Working by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      Your point might have some merit if it were common for engineers to study other peoples' patents to see how to implement various features.

      However, that never happens, as a rule. Engineers who are faced with similar problems tend to arrive at the same more-or-less obvious solutions. When it becomes apparent that a given solution infringes upon a patent filed by another party who happened to have the same problem first, it invariably comes as a surprise to the "infringing" party.

      In fact, engineers tend to be strongly discouraged by their management from doing patent searches at any time, for any reason. Far too many obvious things would lead to triple damages for willful infringement, otherwise.

      Patents are not about rewarding innovation -- that's the market's job. They're about raising barriers to entry. It has always been so.

  5. Only *definitive* patent losses *are* mentioned by FlorianMueller · · Score: 4, Informative

    There was some confusion out there about the ITC staff (Office of Unfair Import Investigations, OOUI) report, and this quote from your post reflects them:

    Apple lost just about their entire claim against Nokia, when half the patents they were seeking to enforce were declared invalid by the FTC, and the rest dismissed as not being infringed.

    No.

    1. As I explained in this recent blog post, Apple's ITC assertions against Nokia were split into two parts. The staff report that the press reported on in early December related to only 4 of the 10 patents Apple originally asserted against Nokia.

    2. That staff opinion is just an opinion, not a definitive dismissal. My Apple vs. Android chart does mention that some patents were dropped from the ITC cases between Apple and HTC: on pages 8 ("Move #7 - Apple drops 4 patents from ITC complaint against HTC") and 10 ("Move #9 -- HTC drops 1 patent from ITC complaint against Apple"). But the instances I mention in my chart were definitive partial terminations of those cases. The ITC staff opinion published a month ago on one Apple v. Nokia case is not definitive. It's an opinion and the ITC's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) can agree or disagree with it. There have been many cases already in which the ALJ judge took decisions that were very different from the staff reports. I've seen a long list of cases in which the staff then actually appealed the ALJ's decision, which is clear evidence that decisions deviate from those staff reports quite often. The staff report is an opinion, and I don't mean to downplay the importance of the staff and its reports, but that is just not a dismissal of claims (let alone the invalidation of patents).

    3. Even if some patents lost before the ITC, they might (as my blog post mentioned under item 1 explains) still be enforced in a US federal district court. My chart makes that distinction in connection with the patents dropped from ITC cases. HTC's '183 patent is grayed-out from Move #9 on because it was only asserted in the ITC so far and they withdrew it. By contrast, Apple's '867, '131, '852 and RE'486 patents were only dropped from an ITC complaint but Apple does enforce them against Motorola now in a federal district court, so the patents are still alive.

    4. The chart this article refers to is purely about Apple vs. Motorola and Apple v. HTC. I'm going to do the same visualization for the Apple-Nokia conflict as well but it will be a separate document because otherwise things would become too complex to fit in a single chart. In fact, I already have that one in place for the most part, so it will become available pretty soon. (Also for Microsoft vs. Motorola and Oracle vs. Google, by the way.)

  6. Re:Wrong by _merlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The RAND thing only applies to GSM forum members. Apple has refused to join the GSM forum. Nokia can add any conditions they like.

  7. Not *that* simple. Seemed to be pre-emptive. by FlorianMueller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I understand the PDF in the article properly, Apple only went after HTC. Motorola then jumped Apple for other reasons and Apple countered. If Apple was initiating all the lawsuits, I'd say this was true, but that does not seem to be the case.

    While you are right that Motorola drew first blood against Apple in terms of actually suing, Motorola's Delaware request for declaratory judgment makes the following claim: "Apple has professed rights [...] based on Motorola Mobility's activities related to Motorola Mobility's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, i1 and Charm products" (you can find the details of that case listed on page 22 of my PDF)

    I don't know what exactly Motorola means by "Apple has professed rights" and whether that description given by Motorola is true, but it could mean that Motorola launched a pre-emptive strike. The fact that Apple's suits against Motorola were filed only 23 days later (Motorola attacked on 06 October 2010, Apple filed suits against Motorola on 23 October 2010) -- not a whole lot of time to prepare suits of that kind -- also suggests that Apple would have sued at any rate.

    But let me make this clear as well: I don't mean to be judgmental about someone who sues. It would be too simplistic a view to say that the one who sues is automatically doing evil. Lawsuits happen if parties can't reach an agreement on something, and one would have to know about the nature and content of all of the previous communication between the parties to know what resulted in the filing of a suit. In many cases one would probably conclude that it's an act of aggression, but in other cases one might have a different or more differentiated perspective if only one knew all of the facts.

    1. Re:Not *that* simple. Seemed to be pre-emptive. by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I don't know which patents Apple counter-sued with, but some are probably the same as the HTC lawsuit. Apple probably would have gone after Motorola in the future, especially if they won the HTC suit. The fact that they've just now tacked on more patents suggests that Motorola may have blindsided them a little.

      The most interesting result in all of these disputes is when HTC settled with Microsoft. I don't know the details of the settlement, but it was reported that HTC would pay Microsoft for every phone sold, even the Android phones. Maybe they wanted protection from Apple through licensing similar patents from Microsoft, or at least something to fall back on if Apple won and they couldn't sell Android phones anymore.

  8. Re:The best defense is a good offense by FlorianMueller · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wasn't going to reply to someone who describes my hard work on this as leaving "taint", but here goes anyway ;-)

    You do raise an important point: cross-licensing. However, cross-license deals come in all shapes and forms. In a few cases the parties will be on an equal footing; in most cases one party will be considerably if not hugely stronger. In the latter case, a "settlement" will also be announced, but in economic and strategic terms, one party will end up losing.

    For now I'm rather skeptical of the impact the patent portfolios of the Android camp can have on their competitors. I gave a quick overview of the five strongest areas of Motorola's patent portfolio in this recent blog post and I also pointed out that Google makes a weak showing against Oracle because Google still hasn't countersued. When I wrote that blog post, Google had already had three months since Oracle sued. Now there's been almost another month and Google still doesn't seem to have found any patents with which it could build a serious counterthreat against Oracle...

  9. See the slashdot hypocrisy in action by SilenceBE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    - Motorola started the patent case agains apple, motorola is the patent troll in this case - Nokia requests patent and licenses which it doesnt require from other companies so discriminating Apple
    And 90 procent of the posts will go about how apple is in fault here.... Yeah but they have patents so they are (more) evil then others. If they wouldnt have a patent portfolio they would be sitting ducks...

  10. Re:The best defense is a good offense by FlorianMueller · · Score: 3, Informative

    symbolset, it's regrettable that after my facts-based reply you just go off-topic here with unclear and unspecified allegations. Instead of a pathetic attempt to smear, you should take a look at the patent portfolios in question. A lot of people believe Google is such a big company that it should own a lot of key patents, but it owns relatively few patents and most of them are related to search engine technologies. Also, even though you mentioned HTC, you won't seriously believe that Apple would lose sleep over HTC's patent portfolio...

  11. Patents, scmatents by symbolset · · Score: 2

    They give us what we want, so we love them. It's not that hard. Your boss should try that.

    Nothing too bad is going to happen in the Great IPocalypse. A bunch of lawyers will get some billable hours to go through the motions. There will be a flutter of competing press releases. Eventually the executives will settle the whole thing over a nice lunch. Some years later some new lawyer will forget to seal the docket in a completely different suit and we'll get to find out who did what to whom and who got paid.

    But neither iOS nor Android is going away. This noise will not slow either one. We'll have our stunningly disruptive revolution.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  12. Re:See the fanboy hypocrisy in action by mjwx · · Score: 2

    Try reading the actual article rather than making up whatever you feel like.

    Apple sued HTC first. HTC responded, Motorola responded. Apple shot first, they were the belligerent party and now we are all paying for a futile patent war.

    One of the reasons I chose Android in the first place so I didn't have to overpay for a phone.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  13. Re:Apple has clearly played thier hand by mjwx · · Score: 2

    Yeah motorola filles patent claims agains apple

    But they didn't file first.

    Apple sued HTC first, Motorola sued Apple some time later as a proactive defence. Apple was the belligerent party whether you like it or not.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  14. Hardware v. Software by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apple decided to move into mobile phones and required hardware to do so. Lacking any actual know how on making phones, like many companies they borrowed the hardware from other companies - Motorola. Motorola is used to licensing out their hardware patents. Motorola makes money on just about every phone sale through their hardware licensing. So Apple asked Motorola to license their technology, but not like everyone else. Apple asked Motorola to trade software patents for hardware patents. Motorola told them to piss into the wind. The only way they were getting Motorola patens, Motorola said, was to trade for other hardware patents or pay a licensing fee like everyone else. Apple took choice C - to use the hardware patents even without license so they could make their iPhone - which would not exist without the Motorola technology.

    The issue here boils down to this question: Are software patents in general worth the same as hardware patents. And of course the answer to anyone who knows anything about the subject is a resounding no. Hardware patents take billions of dollars to develop and millions of man hours in testing physical objects in a physical world. A software patent is an often unimplemented idea most often without a single line of code - vapor. Software patents often sound like this: "A system where a user can use a icon based interface to lookup information about his/her pet in real time with an image and a video of the pet in the same interface as the typing interface where the pet can see the user type". No - really - they are that dumb and ambiguous.

    So Motorola makes an antenna design that will work within solid concrete tunnels without requiring frequency modulation or signal attenuation at the cost of billions of dollars and millions of man hours, testing – certification – more testing, IC engineering, fabrication and design, so much time and effort that to even list what needs to be done would be exhausting - and Apple thinks a fair trade would be the patent that consists of the words: "A system where the user can click and drag through a list of music and select which songs to buy with a button that allows a user to listen to a preview of the song." - Seriously?

    Software patents should never exist. Apple should lose their ass for stealing Motorola technology even after Motorola said they could not use it. If you don’t like the terms of the deal –that means no deal! Not I just use their hardware patents anyway. Who the fuck acts like that? Is Apple a 5 year old? Then after stealing Motorola’s hardware they have the audacity to claim patent infringement? Justice would be well served if Motorola got a big chunk of every iPhone or other Apple device using their hardware without permission. A punitive amount too, not a happy negotiated amount. If the normal is %1 they should pay %10. If it’s %10 they should pay %50. Theft should not at the end of the day, be profitable for stealing technology!

    You cannot take without paying for it.
    You cannot trade software patents for hardware patents.
    You cannot make up your own rules if you don't want to play nice with your hardware vendor


    yes, the patent descriptions in my examples are fabricated, but they are still indicative of hardware patent vs. software patent. Don’t complain unless you also include the actual patents in question I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between software and hardware patents.

  15. Damage done already by Steeltoe · · Score: 2

    Irrelevant. If companies can hold entire industries for "patently absurd ransoms", then it doesn't matter if it is for "self-defence" or not. The presedence has been set, not just hypothetically, but according to law. This will have a chilling effect on all innovation and economical competitiveness in the US.

    Countries that disregard these types of laws will benefit and take over as the intellectual emmigration sets in. Just too bad for the "industrial countries", this is all the resources they've got left.

    Politicians, "diplomats", lawyers and huge international megacorporations will take the profits and move to other countries, once this land has been plundered barren.

    --
    http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
    1. Re:Damage done already by Tharsman · · Score: 2

      Until anyone wins, it has not been proven anyone can hold the entire industry under "patently absurd ransoms".

      Also, unless one of these companies is going after everyone, there really is no actual attempt at holding the industry ransom.

      Heck, if anyone is honestly starting to hold a full industry random now it's Rambus. They won a patent and are now going after anyone that used for nearly 10 years what became an industry standard. THAT is holding an industry random through patents.

      Point being: at this point you can't tell if the one trying to hold an industry random is Apple for suing HTC, or Motorola by suing Apple. This makes my point far from irrelevant as it's simply a point on WHO is trying to do this.

      Also, if you look back at the history of litigation, Apple was sort of forced to get into patenting the hell up after being sued left and right for iPod patent infringements.

      Finally: IANAL, nor have I looked at the patents in question, and for the most part do not agree with software patents (software should only be protected by copyright, imo), but I do find hardware patents to be valid. If some one invents a true new technology, and patents it, he is in the right to sue anyone that attempts to profit on their invention without permissions.

      The sad truth is these days companies get their hands in competing products, dissect them, find out how they work, and try to steal ideas. In the process very often they miss patent protection, in others they do research and only copy that stuff that the manufacturer did not manage to patent.

      When it comes to large corporations as HTC, Motorola, Apple or Microsoft, no one is a poor helpless guy that deserves our pity, They all get themselves into these situations very consciously. These are not Patent Trolls, nor bullies stepping on the small guy. These are giants trying to steal from each-other and fighting back when caught.

  16. Buying a barrier to entry by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2

    My own fear about all these court cases is that when the dust settles we'll have half a dozen companies who've paid dearly for nothing (other than the right to distribute their software) and this companies won't take too kindly to new developers.

    We'll be left with a cartel. If you want to write software for phones, you better pay the expensive cross-licences or get into the protection of someone who has.

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Cost_barrier_to_market_entry
    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!