Slashdot Mirror
Preliminary ITC Ruling: Motorola Not In Violation of Apple's Patents
SpuriousLogic writes with a preliminary ruling in the ITC case between Apple and Motorola. Quoting eWeek: "Motorola is celebrating an initial triumph over Apple, after a U.S. International Trade Commission administrative law judge issued an initial determination (PDF) finding that Motorola Mobility has not violated any of the three patents listed in an October 2010 lawsuit Apple filed against the Droid maker. ... The determination isn't the final say ... in March, the ruling will be reviewed by a six-member ITC panel that will announce the ultimate ruling. However, according to Zacks Equity Research, it's unusual for the ITC panel, which has the power to block device imports, to contradict a judge's determination."
How shocking. How much Google paid for the judge for his "honest" ruling? It's clear that patents were violated. Not only does Google openly violate any and all patents they can and spend lots of money to buy their patent warchest to abuse and control the markets, they also violate copyrights of independant book writers and publishers and everything on youtube.
Motorola is in the cable industry and they can play some real hard ball.
Hay apple good luck getting a tv service with NO Comcast / or NBC content.
Did a Google Streetview car run over your dog or something?
or more likely, he is one of them 4-5 shill accounts which always end up having a first post against google/pro microsoft in all relevant subjects. someone was tracking them. i guess s/he will post in this thread too.
Read radical news here
Hope that this will be the first of many many defeats Apple will face in the future
I've had enough of patent trolling, no matter if it comes from Microsoft or Apple
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Florian Mueller to the white courtesy phone. One order of crow to go for Mr. Mueller.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I remember a time where companies would get 3 or 4 years of quality FUD out of a false patent claim. All Apple got were a few months and some Florian Mueller posts. I'd be asking for my money back, at least from Mueller.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The intellectual property lawsuits are getting out of hand. The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation, it's passing the costs on to the consumer. The amount of money these companies spend fighting over small print, legal wording, and patent technicalities is atrocious; in the end, we pay for their lawyers and court fees. Apple should be encouraging competition, not trying to crush it. Let the consumer decide if Motorola deserves to compete with Apple, not a court.
Go fuck yourselves in the ass. Your religion is a lie and you're a bunch of liars for keeping with it. And motherfucking thugs too. Punk ass bitches behead the unarmed? Is that really where you're coming from? Fuck you.
Fuck Mohammad, Fuck Allah, FUCK ISLAM!!!!!!!
The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
There are/were a bunch of countries with Samsung tablet unavailability because of Apple-requested injunctions. It's usually hard to point at the status quo and make a good case for what would have been if only something else had happened, so I think that's pretty solid evidence for the GP's claim.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
There's still plenty of time to grease some palms before the ITC makes its ruling.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was due for an Australian release in October. Due to legal interference from Apple it was not released until December.
So yes, they are trying to hold back competition and by extent innovation. Just because they haven't been successful at it does not make it OK.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
There are/were a bunch of countries with Samsung tablet unavailability because of Apple-requested injunctions. It's usually hard to point at the status quo and make a good case for what would have been if only something else had happened, so I think that's pretty solid evidence for the GP's claim.
Not really - GP's claim was "holding back innovation." Now, if he had said, "constant litigation is holding back sales," then he'd be absolutely right. But those injunctions were issued because a judge agreed that Samsung wasn't innovating, but were copying. The litigation was a result of a lack of innovation, not a cause of it.
Furthermore, as I noted, the litigation holds back sales. Innovation is still proceeding, as shown by the phones at CES.
The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was due for an Australian release in October. Due to legal interference from Apple it was not released until December.\ So yes, they are trying to hold back competition and by extent innovation. Just because they haven't been successful at it does not make it OK.
Sure, that litigation holds back sales and marketplace competition... But "and by extent innovation"? How does litigation over an existing product in any way affect innovation regarding new products? Can you logically support that extension you're proposing?
Not to mention the fact that the injunctions against the Galaxy Tab were because judges thought Samsung wasn't innovating, but were copying, so those suits are not really the best evidence for you.
Isn't that the one where the judge decided that a rectangular near to edge screen display flat device with beveled edges and rounded corners as well as a black coloration was too close to the patented look of the ipads?
HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU PATENT THE BASIC APPEARANCE OF A PHYSICAL OBJECT ?!?!?!?
Honestly, other than it being black, pretty much everything else is engineering functionality of a page like handheld display device of our current technological capabilities.
As for black, that's one of the standard colors accepted by businesses, so even the color really isn't a choice, it's a necessity for anything that wants to be taken seriously by the business world.
White, Cream, Gray, and Black are really the only colors that business seems to like, and for that matter, white and cream seem to be out of style again with gray in a close lead to the bottom.
Almost all applications for an ITC import ban are rejected:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission
But that's not the point. For a number of weeks or months, there's a cloud hanging over the target company and investors don't know if a device will ever be on sale in the USA. It's serious FUD, for free.
An actual import ban would just be monopolist icing on the FUD cake.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
At this point, the barrier to entry is so high that we'll probably never see another new phone company entering the market. You may see lots of competition among the companies that have lots of money to throw around (e.g. Samsung, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, Nokia, LG, Amazon), but have you ever thought about the small companies that are getting crushed? I honestly don't have a clue how HTC survives, but if another of their ilk comes about amidst these stupid lawsuits, I'll eat my shoe.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
You are confusing "holding back innovation" with "completely preventing any innovation". Seeing new phones at CES is only evidence that innovation is not being completely halted. Just look at the incentives. Constant litigation makes releasing products more expensive which reduces profits and thus removes some of the incentives to make and release new products.
You are confusing "holding back innovation" with "completely preventing any innovation". Seeing new phones at CES is only evidence that innovation is not being completely halted.
Sure - but do you have evidence that innovation is being held back at all? Just look at the incentives. Constant litigation makes releasing products more expensive which reduces profits and thus removes some of the incentives to make and release new products.
Except that, on the other side of the litigation, those lawsuits are protecting profits and ability to recoup R&D investment. The lawsuits reduce the incentives to make marginally innovative products or direct copies, as in the Samsung suits, but increase the incentives to make highly innovative products. The greater the innovation, the more likely to defend an infringement suit.
Are you really asking how holding back sales and limiting competition could affect innovation? What exactly do you think drives people to innovate? Apple doesn't innovate just because they like making neat things or because they love puppies and flowers. They innovate because it allows them to sell products and gives them an edge over their competition.
Sure, that litigation holds back sales and marketplace competition... But "and by extent innovation"? How does litigation over an existing product in any way affect innovation regarding new products? Can you logically support that extension you're proposing?
That is easy. How much time do you think it takes to develop a product if you have to pass several design aspects through the opinions of IP Lawyers and iterate until it is accepted?
If the fear of litigation exists because of what happened to previous products it is natural that new products will be delayed because you have to try to design around stupid patents.
You mean besides the direct effect of asking for an injunction on any product that even might be better, simply because it competes.
Well it's designed to raise the cost of entry by increasing the risks. Smaller companies that can afford to be more innovative then Apple have a huge disincentive to release new products out of the fear of an expensive law suit that they would be unable to fight.
Reduction in innovation is a direct result of reduction in competition. Attempting to stop competition from releasing new products reduces the new technologies available on the market.
Wrong. The German injunction was over a design patent. Not an innovation and that was overturned. The Australian injunction was voluntary. Samsung agreed to it and the first Judge, Justice Anabelle Bennett's major complaint was against Samsung's Lawyers, not a judgement on the technology itself. This judgement was overturned by a full bench of the Federal court AND a full bench of the High court. This is a very clear indication that the injunction was wrong.
So when you learn the truth, they actually are good examples. Apple are using litigation to stop competition because they are unable to compete. As I said before, just because they aren't very good at it doesn't make it OK.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Mmmm, FUD cake..
The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
You must be a mad instigator to proffer such a lame proposition to the /. crowd. You need to listen to "When Patents Attack" before replying.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Spend some time on groklaw.net while you are at it.
Apple (and other big companies) are inundated with ridiculous patent trolling lawsuits weekly. By all of these companies filing frivolous lawsuits, doesn't the precedence set by the rulings both for and against them mean that it makes it that much harder for patent trolls to win? Do you think a multi-billion dollar company like Apple could give two shits about whether or not it wins some dumb lawsuit as long as it can say to a judge "Well, the case of this patent troll currently suing us doesn't hold water because the rulings on this case, this case, and this case all show his point is invalid."?
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Because they are the leading smartphone manufacturer in the US (at least as of Q3 last year). That doesn't reflect worldwide numbers or revenue generated, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. My last 3 phones have been HTC and I'll continue to buy their phones. Their damn good phones, affordable, and are often hacker-friendly(er).
I hear Motorola invented this "cellular phone" thing that might prove popular some day. You should look it up on Wikipedia. But not Wednesday. Wednesday Wikipedia will be down.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
GP's claim was "holding back innovation." Now, if he had said, "constant litigation is holding back sales," then he'd be absolutely right.
Don't be a pedant. "Holding back sales" obviously holds back innovation, both by making the innovative improvements in the Samsung product unavailable to the market and by reducing by the expected amount of litigation expenses the financial incentive for prospective competitors to build innovative new products.
Apple, unfortunately, escalated the patent cold war which turned them into a target for all other companies as pre-emptive defense.
Microsoft, despite its bluster, hasn't been willing to take an active role in suing other corporations, and is instead resorting to a less profitable extortion which keeps them in the black without dangerous risk. The companies they're dealing with also aren't willing to be the first to go into court about this and just pay off Microsoft.
Sure, Microsoft might be able to win in court for greater profits compared to their current extortion fees, but that also has the risk of backfiring as it did for Apple. Microsoft isn't willing to run the risk whereas Apple, in their arrogance, tried to prevent their competition from taking the field. And now Apple is paying for it.
I expect Apple to keep taking the hits for the next few years while Microsoft continues playing "nice" until a smaller company, with arrogant stupidity, decides to poke the sleeping lion. After which Microsoft will slaughter them and hang them out to dry before going back to playing nice with everybody else.
Of course, unless Microsoft actually creates something new enough to bring in the big bucks, they're going to slowly waste away while dragging everyone else down with them thanks to their chokehold on patents.
Suing Apple right out of business would be great. Although I'm sure that's too much to ask for.
I used to like Apple, before Apple became a thuggish, IP scam company.
Apple is always right. Evidence, and logic, are irrelevant.
The iPhone was a huge success, and that's great. But it does not mean that Apple invented the smart phone. And it certainly does not mean that Apple invented every technology included in an iPhone - such as color icons.
That is something that Apple, and Apple zealots, pretend they don't understand.
Except that, on the other side of the litigation, those lawsuits are protecting profits and ability to recoup R&D investment. The lawsuits reduce the incentives to make marginally innovative products or direct copies, as in the Samsung suits, but increase the incentives to make highly innovative products. The greater the innovation, the more likely to defend an infringement suit.
There is a whole list of flaws in your argument:
For one thing, no amount of innovation can eliminate or even substantially reduce the likelihood of litigation -- litigation comes from vague, numerous, overbroad patents. I assume the original iPhone was sufficiently innovative for your tastes, but that didn't stop them from getting sued by then-incumbents. As that example proves, creating a more innovative product may increase your chances of getting sued, because if the new product starts taking over the market then the incumbent players may turn to litigation out of desperation.
The sort of "innovation" you're talking about -- the kind that comes through a team of lawyers telling the engineers what they have to design around -- is nothing like the innovation that anybody wants to promote. It is nothing but a highly wasteful effort at reinventing the wheel. It directs the finite time and effort of engineering talent to doing the same thing in a slightly different way, rather than putting it toward actually doing something new.
In addition to that, the alleged increase in innovation on the part of the company initiating the litigation is nowhere in evidence. Apple continues to remain highly profitable notwithstanding the alleged copying, so there is no want for revenues to fund future R&D. More than that, the competition is what requires them to actually continue producing new innovative products -- if a company can keep its competitors' products off the market with patents then it doesn't need to spend anything more on its own R&D until the patents expire. Competitors continually producing better products mean that everyone has to keep R&D fully funded in order to stay ahead of the curve -- it forces innovative companies to stay innovative rather than innovating once and then litigating forever after.
Well it's designed to raise the cost of entry by increasing the risks. Smaller companies that can afford to be more innovative then Apple have a huge disincentive to release new products out of the fear of an expensive law suit that they would be unable to fight.
Actually, small companies that can afford to be more innovative have a huge incentive to release new products out of the interest in being bought by one of the big players, who can then litigate amongst themselves. You're seriously expecting us to believe that some inventor is out there saying "gosh, I'd love to innovate, but then someone will give me millions of dollars to retire on my private island, so I can't do that"?
Reduction in innovation is a direct result of reduction in competition.
Prove it, then - where's the reduced innovation? Are there fewer patent applications being filed now? Fewer white papers being published? Fewer Nobel prizes being awarded? Operating Systems with additional years between releases?
Wrong. The German injunction was over a design patent. Not an innovation and that was overturned.
Wrong.
Design patents are also innovations that have to be novel and nonobvious. They're merely non-functional innovations, but aesthetic ones. If you don't understand what design patents are, then maybe you shouldn't be throwing around pronunciations of who's "wrong".
Furthermore, the German injunction wasn't overturned. It is still in place, on the original Galaxy Tab 10... It doesn't apply to the 10N or the 7, but then, it was never intended to.
The Australian injunction was voluntary. Samsung agreed to it and the first Judge, Justice Anabelle Bennett's major complaint was against Samsung's Lawyers, not a judgement on the technology itself. This judgement was overturned by a full bench of the Federal court AND a full bench of the High court. This is a very clear indication that the injunction was wrong.
Then (a) why did Samsung agree to it and (b) how is that evidence that the injunction stifled their sales? Rather, Samsung voluntarily stifled their sales.
Furthermore, the high court overturned the preliminary injunction. Their ruling was expressly limited only to the preliminary injunction, and did not say that (i) Samsung did not infringe and was not liable for damages or (ii) that a permanent injunction later on wouldn't be reasonable. All they did was say that an injunction was premature at that stage in the trial. But that doesn't mean Samsung wins - the court expressly ordered them to keep records on all sales, advertising, etc., because if they lose the trial, they're liable for every single penny.
So when you learn the truth, they actually are good examples.
Actually, all we've learned is that you don't really know what you're talking about.
GP's claim was "holding back innovation." Now, if he had said, "constant litigation is holding back sales," then he'd be absolutely right.
Don't be a pedant. "Holding back sales" obviously holds back innovation, both by making the innovative improvements in the Samsung product unavailable to the market and by reducing by the expected amount of litigation expenses the financial incentive for prospective competitors to build innovative new products.
I disagree... Holding back sales of a non-innovative, infringing product like Samsung's doesn't hold back innovation at all, because there's no innovation there. Saying "Samsung can't innovate because they're too busy being sued over the product they copied because they weren't innovating" is merely a circular argument.
It is becoming apparent that the reason you think as you do is that you have no idea how patents work.
Do you honestly not understand that a product can simultaneously be highly innovative and allegedly infringe a third party's patent? Hint: Nothing is 100% new. Everything builds on what came before. You can have a product with a thousand innovative features and all it takes is a single one more that happens to have already existed and been patented by a third party to have it declared as infringing and removed from the market.
I could actually understand being able to patent the basic appearance of something if that shape itself was a) Something intimately associated with the product/brand b) Not generic The iPad passes test a, but fails miserably on test b. The Coke contour bottle would be an example of something that could potentially pass both tests. While the idea of a bottle is itself fairly generic, it's also one that lends itself to many variations, unlike the basic rectangle of tablet computers. Patenting one very specific bottle shape doesn't really hinder competitors in any meaningful way, except to prevent copycats.
To be honest, MS played the patent game a lot smarter than Apple did. MS just makes vendors pay to shut up, even though (true to form), they are utter sleezebags about it. Apple on the other hand was totally out of their minds when they developed their legal strategy (perhaps, once again, true to form). Did Steve Jobs really think he could sue other phone manufacturers out of existence? Did they actually think that they would be the only ones that should be allowed to make smartphones? His ego always was his downfall.
In any case, now I'd like to see someone do something about MS. Another Software Tax is a bad precedent for the industry...
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
True, but when you consider the strength of your legal team, what matters most is the amount of money you have to afford a crack staff. Also, I'm no businessperson, but I'd imagine that if they're not making good margins on each unit sold, then as a company, they're really not growing.
In any case, I really wish that Google would choose them to produce the Nexus line again. Samsung makes a good phone no doubt, but there's something to be said about a company that publicly unlocks all of its phone's bootloaders. If I get into hacking phones myself, then maybe I will get an HTC next as well
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Samsung makes a good phone no doubt, but there's something to be said about a company that publicly unlocks all of its phone's bootloaders.
That's because in case of HTC, they were locked to begin with, so they had to release the unlock tool. Meanwhile, Samsung just didn't lock theirs. At this point, I don't see how either one is really more hacker friendly than the other, to be honest. Both have explicit policy to not lock the bootloaders on future devices.
In any case, since Nexus devices are always unlocked by design regardless of the manufacturer, it's kinda irrelevant. And I'm glad that they did go with Samsung for the latest Nexus, if only because I love that gorgeous OLED screen (and I don't think Sammy is selling it to anyone else at this point).
No, because that's not an invention. It might be reasonable as a trade mark however.
null
Samsung was not made unavailable because of anything related to patents.
This is purely design copy rulings. We do not have software patents in Europe.
So if Samsung made their device ugly, they could put all their software patent infringing technology inside, as long as it did not look and feel too much like an iDevice.
Design Patents -- they were created by man, they're a half-assed overlap of utility patents and trademarks, most /.ers don't understand them, and they have a plan.
Oh, and the Coke bottle is one, in fact the canonical example.
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
Given that "innovation" is defined as delivering new inventions to end customers, this becomes, in a sense a stupid question. Blocking innovation is exactly what patents are designed to do. The Magsafe connector is a really neat idea. By now, if it were possible, at least one PC manufacturer would have an equivalent. The reason they don't is because Apple has a patent and they can use that patent to block innovation. This extends simply to include all of the Apple lawsuits against Samsung which held back innovation in the new phones from being delivered to Samsung's customers. In other words;
Where does the idea that patents "further the arts" etc. come from then? Well, one aim of patents is that inventors should record their innovations so that the ideas wouldn't be lost when they die. Also the idea is that whilst patents block innovation in one area, they further it in other related areas by forcing competitors to come up with different inventions which achieve the same thing in a different way. Thus patent supporters would predict for example:
That in its self is "evidence", but you might claim it's just a one off. It's definitely true that a number of innovations that nobody would hear of otherwise end up recorded in patents, for example very obscure and different kinds of mousetraps are continually invented even though it's not clear that actually drives innovation.
The patent apologist would answer that by claiming that "yes, in situation a, b and c the patent got in the way of innovation, but overall, taking into account all the different patents, the situation is better than it would be otherwise". It's almost impossible to answer that. Almost but not quite impossible.
Firstly we can compare places with weaker patents with those with stronger patents; we would expect to see innovation in the USA accellerating, due to it's broad patent protection, whilst China should be losing ground since patents are regularly ignored there. In fact we see the opposite.
Now, I'd like to separate out "software patents" from patents in general. I believe that if the system was reverted back to more narrow patents and lifetimes were more limited, patents on physical devices would be justified. Physical devices develop more slowly; have higher duplication costs against which patent costs are more easily justified and tend to have a much lower number of patents per device. Software patents are another issue.
As a second part of our statistical evidence there have been a bunch of different academic studies. AN EMPIRICAL LOOK AT SOFTWARE PATENTS from Besson et al does a good examination of the effect of software patents. The conclusion is fairly clearly that software patents damage innovation. Another example of this academic research A GENERATION OF SOFTWARE PATENTS ends it's abst
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Microsoft got an ex-IBM person to run their patent strategy. There's an old story about when Sun was a startup. They got a visit from some IBM lawyers, who said 'we have these 7 patents that you infringe, and we'd like you to sign a cross-licensing deal with us'. The Sun guys looked at the patents and systematically demolished them. The IBM lawyers replied that, yes, these patents might be invalid, but asked if they were willing to bet the company on the fact that none of the other IBM patents were valid and covered Sun's activities. They weren't, and Sun signed the agreement, albeit with slightly better terms than were originally offered.
Microsoft originally built a purely defensive patent portfolio. It was there incase anyone sued them. Then they decided to adopt the much more lucrative IBM strategy...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
n/t
FTW!
There is a big difference between MS and Apple and the way they do patents:
MS just wants their cut, you give them a fairly reasonable share, and go on your merry way with your devices. This is perfectly acceptable.
On the other hand, Apple wants your business dead. No negotiation, they want you out of the market, and they will attack you in US courts, as well as courts all around the world. Businesses at the wrong end of Apple's patent disputes find they either find a patent Apple is infringing and attack Apple (forcing a settlement), try to invalidate Apple's patent in a California court on Apple's home turf, or close their doors.
Patent litigation these days sucks, but at least MS, you just pay them what is owed and move on. Apple wants to shut you down so they can be the only game in town. (Ironic this because if MS did this, they would be hauled in front of the DOJ for monopolistic practice. Google is/has been investigated for the same. Apple just seems to have carte blanche in this arena.)
The German injunction was over a design patent.
Also please keep in mind that getting granted an injunction in Germany, says very little about the validity of the case. Unless you very obviously don't have a case you'll get your injunction. This is balanced by the fact that you are then liable for damages if you later fail to win your case. So Apple getting an injunction merely means they felt sure enough of their case to risk it.
"Did Steve Jobs really think he could sue other phone manufacturers out of existence?"
Well he thought he could beat cancer with nothing more than a change in diet and a bit of willpower, to the answer to that may well actually be "yes". Look how the former ended for him though - it led him to delay treatment long enough that it was no longer survivable, perhaps these lawsuits are the same for Apple in general?
I expect Apple to keep taking the hits for the next few years while Microsoft continues playing "nice" until a smaller company, with arrogant stupidity, decides to poke the sleeping lion. After which Microsoft will slaughter them and hang them out to dry before going back to playing nice with everybody else
And that smaller company would be Barnes and Noble. B&N is standing up to Microsoft quite well so far, but things are still in the early stages.
Motorola also stood up to MS ... and only one of the patents in the lawsuit actually stuck (and it was a pretty minor one at that), the rest were shown to be the rubbish that they were. Once Motorola officially becomes part of Google I would expect things to get even more interesting.
The German injunction was over a design patent.
Also please keep in mind that getting granted an injunction in Germany, says very little about the validity of the case. Unless you very obviously don't have a case you'll get your injunction. This is balanced by the fact that you are then liable for damages if you later fail to win your case. So Apple getting an injunction merely means they felt sure enough of their case to risk it.
It's the same in Australia. The Injunction Apple tried to get was called interlocutory injunction, which is a temporary injunction during an ongoing case, which is not a judgement on the case itself. The actual infringement case between Apple and Samsung in Australia has not been held yet and I doubt Apple have a chance of winning that.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.