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."
It's hard to be clear about patents when the patents themselves (never mind the patent system itself) are unintelligible.
Did a Google Streetview car run over your dog or something?
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
Really. You're making baseless accusations of serious crimes with zero evidence, and you're standing in judgement of ethics?
Hunh.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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.
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
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!
Even moreso, it's Apple's goal of a means to enforce their ridiculously marked up prices and, on top of that, ensure that they're the only vendor allowing them to mark it up even higher. Even Apple knows that their pricing models are obviously unsustainable. Remember how the initial Iphone was $600? It would probably be even worse today if they had their way in the courts and crushed all of their competitors.
Thankfully, their model is a failure.
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.
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.
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.
Newton resolved this flamewar coupla hundreds of years ago, apparently said something about standing, shoulders, giants. And it was not Apple's Newton, mind you.
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.
It's clear to a shill that patents were violated.
Problem is, software patents are an oxymoron. Software is properly copyrighted, not patented. Until you can understand that point, we'll probably not agree on anything else.
If we ever get past that point, then we'll begin by discussing the concept of a squarish box with rounded corners that don't snag and cut you or your clothing, one face of which is the display, taking up all the room possible on that face. Good grief, there are patents aplenty for real innovation. Patents were never meant to stifle innovation. What did you want Motorola and the rest to do - make a spherical device instead of squarish?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
If Apple doesn't care, then why is Apple constantly patent scamming?
BTW: I think you got the roles reversed. This is not about Apple being sued, it's about one of Apple's scam lawsuits failing.
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.
Did you really register as a Slashdot user just to post that?
I see that you registered your account when the story went "red" and made some random comment in another story while you were waiting for the Apple story to turn "green", so you could be the first post. This is well-known sock-puppet troll behavior. Around here we tend to not look so kindly on people who are paid trolls.
Which of the "New Media Strategies" companies do you work for, "HankMoody"? Don't they train you guys to do a little better job of setting up your sockpuppet accounts?
Are you going to make the Slashdot community embarrass you and your bosses or will you just come clean? Tell us who you work for and we'll go easy on you.
Look, we all know that it's hard to find a job these days, and a lot of people are doing all sorts of demeaning things to put a little bread on the table. I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, but you've got to understand that when paid shills like yourself start to overrun an online community, it corrupts everything. People no longer feel comfortable discussing serious topics when the user base is seeded with shills.
If you're effort is to undermine a thread about sleazy Apple behavior, when you post as a shill it just makes people hate Apple all that much more. And once you're outed, you're placed on a permanent pay-no-mind list and then your work is for nothing. We realize that you're only here to disrupt the free exchange of honest opinions and all of your efforts backfire. At worst you'll be outed and your minimum wage job as an internet shill will be over. It's happened before.
Now I'll ask again: Which of the new media strategies companies do you work for? Think carefully before you answer. Accept the fact that this "HankMoody" account is burned up. Your cover is blown. It's over. Might as well come clean. We'll be watching for you now, HankMoody.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Slide to unlock
Showing pictures on a phone
Placement of status buttons and progress bars (on a phone)
These are all software implementations, not algorithms. They should all be thrown out as patents.
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.
Did you really register as a Slashdot user just to post that?
It's more likely that it's bonch, only his main account was finally modded down into karma oblivion where he belongs. I don't think there has been an Apple story in the last several months where bonch didn't have the first post - said first post invariably explaining in great detail how Google is bad and Apple is good.
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
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();
Newton was crediting those that came before him, and sometimes contemporary to him, Apple OTOH seems to believe that they invented all sorts of things that they didn't.Smartphones existed prior to the iPhone and database driven UI existed in MP3 players prior to the iPod, but Apple believes in both cases to have invented them, or at least that's what their public face says.
Ultimately, Apple is with MS and any number of other patent trolls out there, trying to get a buck for something which they have no right to charge for.