Google, Motorola Ordered To Provide Android Info To Apple

snydeq writes "A U.S. judge has ordered Motorola Mobility and Google to turn over information to Apple on Google's acquisition in 2005 of Android, its development of the Android OS and the proposed acquisition of Motorola. According to Motorola, the information Apple seeks regarding Google's acquisition of Motorola and Android is not relevant to any damages asserted in the case." This comes alongside news that Apple has offered licensing deals to Motorola and Samsung that would resolve some of the patent litigation. Apple is reportedly asking for $5-$15 per device sold.

Comments

Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[Lennie]

So some manufacturers will end up paying Apple and Microsoft per device sold ? That's crazy.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[macshit]

Yes, our broken patent system is crazy. It stifles innovation and harms society. That's why it should be significantly reformed (i.e., gutted).

That won't happen, of course, because companies like MS and Apple can afford to make it not happen. What's actually good for society is pretty much irrelevant.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[zill]

I used to think the patent licensing system was like racketeering. But I was wrong.

With racketeering you only have to pay one gang. With the patent system you have to pay multiple gangs.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it exactly backwards. The patent system promotes innovation to society's benefit by ensuring that inventors reap the rewards of their efforts. If entries were legally allowed to copy the good ideas of others then and only then would innovation suffer because nobody would go to the effort to invent anything new.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[VortexCortex]

Yes, our broken patent system is crazy. It stifles innovation and harms society. That's why it should be significantly reformed (i.e., gutted).

I think patents should be eradicated outright, screw reform. Geniuses aren't special. There were two telephones in the PTO within hours of each other. Edison's 1880 Light-bulb patent came after Swan's 1878 UK patent for an improved incandescent lamp in a vacuum tube... Some of my teenage hobby source code is prior art that would invalidate many software patents held today (eg: VMware's saving & restoring VM state -- my Lisp VM did just that). Granting a monopoly over an idea because you made it to the patent office first is not valuable in today's society. The patent system has never worked as intended, it has always favoured the rich and established, not the basement genius.

I say we eradicate the patent system. The "no more innovation argumenteers" can argue all they want, but without testing the hypothesis it's all just untested conjecture. I say let's do the experiment. It's not like we can't re-instate whatever BS laws we want.

What if we sold the devices BLANK! Then you could by the Android OS firmware you want, or install your own separately installed via SD card. You know, like in the good old days, when you paid for hardware without being forced to pay for software too.

I've read lots of software patents and they all use a loophole: "Method and Apparatus for _____"
You see, the software is merely a binary description of the method, it's not an apparatus unless you consider the mind an apparatus... Neither can the blank general purpose computer AKA Apparatus by itself infringe a software patent.

So, the patent would only apply once the end user installs the software on the device and boots it, and eventually executes the patented instructions that implement the Method on the Apparatus -- if they ever do. Good luck suing all the end users, esp. when it's not clear that their machines executed the infringing code.

A patent application has a description of the patented process in it. That can be translated into Spanish, HTML, PDF, pseudo-code, etc. and it's not an infringement. OK, so what If It's translated into C? Still not an infringement, right? What if the C code is translated to machine code, or what if I actually manually translate the patent application into machine code (as I do occasionally, when I debug the compilers I make). I can execute those machine instructions on graph paper with a pencil, my mind is the Apparatus. So, this shouldn't be an infringement either.

You could sell the devices blank with only a PDF on them that actually describes the patented processes... right? I mean, downloading a PDF of a patent doesn't magically make my PC infringe the patent described therein. So, you could just as easily have placed the pseudo-code translation of said software patent claims on the otherwise blank device, still not an infringement, eh? What about C? Here's a device with a C code description of a patent in it. Is that an infringement? Nope. I'm having a hard time following the logical leap whereby the machine code translation of the patent claims creates an infringing use... eg: what if the device has the wrong firmware -- OR no power source -- That non-function device can't infringe a patent on a store shelf...

Well, let's say said device has a compiler present? If the C code isn't an infringement -- It's equivalent to a French or Pseudo-code translation of the patent -- then, you could simply compile the offending code yourself the first time the device is used. Wouldn't that "route-around" the distributor's infringing of said patents?

Seriously... this software patent crap has to stop.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[Capt. Skinny]

That was the original intent, yes. But overly broad patents owned by litigious corporations with deep pockets have created a fear among inventors or potential inventors that any new invention will be labeled as infringing by some corporation owning some broad patent. As a result, only the litigious corporations with deep pockets dare take the risk of selling a new invention.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[Capt. Skinny]

I think patents should be eradicated outright, screw reform. Geniuses aren't special.

Innovation requires more effort than genius. There are few "Ah-ha!" developments that come to people in the middle of the night in a dream. Patents are intended to create a profit incentive for people to put in the requisite effort, thereby encouraging innovation for the public good.

Without a profit incentive, why should I spend years in my lab building a better solar panel, or heart valve, or internal combustion engine? As soon as my years of hard work pay off and I put my product on the market, countless other companies would be able to offer the same thing for only the cost of reverse engineering my product. I endured all the up-front development costs, yet I make the same profit as everyone else who starts selling it because I have to compete with everyone else. I'm a nice guy, but I'm not self-sacrificing.

Seriously... this software patent crap has to stop.

The crap, yes. Patents themselves, no.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[Aryden]

not when a company (Apple) can sue and win in court because a device has rounded corners and thus infringes on their patent (see Apple vs Samsung). I think the end result was, it couldn't be rectangular with rounded corners or have a "home" button of any sort.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey megacorps, why not focus on... Oh I don't know... Making a better product? Think of all that R&D money wasted on lawyers. Just a shame.

And when you create a product from all that R&D money and a competitor simply "clones" the product, isn't that R&D money wasted? Well from the perspective of the creator who spent the money, not the cloner who free loaded.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[lorenlal]

I'm glad you found one case that was opened before Google acquired Motorola Mobility, where MM was actively defending against a troll in Microsoft. Microsoft accusing anyone of abusing patents is kinda like a black hole calling something dark. Seeing how the litigation between MS and MM has been going on since 10/10, I'm going to say your example isn't making GGP's assertion true. In fact, I'm willing to say that if that's the best someone can come up with, that assertion is absolutely false.

Your case is more an example of how Microsoft has been abusing its patent portfolio for seriously hideous patents. Most manufacturers just signed up to pay MS a cost of a Windows Mobile license to avoid litigation, and they passed the cost on to the consumer. You're thinking that deserves defense and benefits us? Apple wants a cut of the same action. They're proving that they're no better than MS, NTP and SCO in my book.

All this does is reinforce the idea that if you're a small time inventor, or even a big time manufacturer, who really wants to make a product that innovates, and gives people something they really want... There's no chance in hell in the US. MS, Apple, NTP, Honeywell or some other patent holding company will just kill you for making it remotely useful.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[rtb61]

That ludicrous claim would only be valid if people buying an Android device believed they were buying an Apple device, this being the original intent of the law.

Clearly people were buying those device because the hardware outperformed the Apple hardware for the same price and the Android software was and is superior. So Apple intentionally distorted application of the law to prevent competition, using legal literal ambiguities.

Re:So 5-15 to MS 5-15 to Apple, total $10-$30

[masternerdguy]

Neither company can innovate so they are leeching off those than can. And we suffer.

Dear Apple...

[fatalGlory]

People buy your products because they are original, innovative and useful. Litigation for profit is not original. Litigation for profit is not innovative. Litigation for profit is not useful. Please, oh please, just get back to doing what people love you for.

Between Apple and Microsoft

[JohnFen]

Between Apple and Microsoft, it's becoming impossible to own a smartphone without paying money to some truly awful corporation. I hope my current one won't have to be my last.

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how google, which is essentially a company that turns it's profits from spying and building a profile of every detail of it's users is not evil.

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[ozmanjusri]

Buy a cheap knock-off China phone. It's the only ethical choice.

Apple becoming a patent troll?

[rvr777]

Why does Apple need to do this so badly? I understand that U$ 5 for every Motorola/Samsung Android phone/tablet is a hefty sum of money, but this hurts their image. specially for their customers, as it *could* be interpreted as having a difficult competing with Android. I'm very disappointed that they are going the same way as other patent trolls :(

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[Trolan]

A patent troll is usually called that because they didn't produce anything using the patent in question aside from a lawsuit. Apple here is using patents they are actively using, and believe that are being infringed by Android. Considering Motorola is going for 2.5% of sale price of iPhones for use of standards patents covered by FRAND, this is at least a more reasonable figure. It's also quite possibly a means of leveraging a cross-licensing deal so neither side winds up paying the other a dime.

Ultimately, they're doing what most sane businesses would do. If you had a design you felt was innovative enough to patent and you spent a ton of R&D on, and you saw a company producing something that you believe is infringing on your ideas, would you just sit back and let them run with it? Or do you like doing free R&D for your competition?

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[exomondo]

Why does Apple need to do this so badly? I understand that U$ 5 for every Motorola/Samsung Android phone/tablet is a hefty sum of money, but this hurts their image. specially for their customers, as it *could* be interpreted as having a difficult competing with Android. I'm very disappointed that they are going the same way as other patent trolls :(

Well a 'patent troll' is an entity that just holds patents and sues people that actually use the without licensing them but doesn't actually use them themselves, just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll. And wrt hurting their image for their customers, if the conditions and incidents at the factories that build their products don't turn off their customers i hardly think suing their competitors for using their innovations (which is of course how they'll spin it regardless of your point of view) is going to.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[andydread]

So you endorse suing over software-patents then right? You are happy with Apple and Microsoft suing YOU for writing code right? Code that they did not write and have NOTHING to do with? So if one operating system has a menu bar can we patent that and sue every one to hell and back for implementing a menu bar in software with completely different code? Suing people for swipe to unlock and displaying text before an image in a browser is ok with you? So now you can't sit down at your computer and write code without an army of lawyers charging you a heap for the privilege to use your own fucking code?

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[Daniel Phillips]

[blather]... so Apple isn't a patent troll

Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors. For the rest of us, Apple is burning karma at an alarming rate and has already declined significantly in terms of respect for the corporate brand. Apple is doing its best to establish a reputation for rapaciousness over engineering excellence.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[andydread]

You are saying that Schmidt stole IOS code and put it in Android? That is bullshit. Total Bullshit and you know it. Schmidt was not privy to any Iphone info while on the board and definitely did not have access to any Apple source code. Stop spreading misinformation.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[nwoolls]

Try Googling "Android before iPhone". Yes it existed. And it was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone was released and a massive hit did they change course.

Re:Photo of phones before and after iphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem

Re:Photo of phones before and after iphone

[SuperAlgae]

A picture is worth a thousand words, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that those words are truthful.

Motorola had a very iPhone-like device (even with an app store) in 2006 before the iPhone was released...
http://www.quora.com/Why-was-Motorola-unable-to-capitalize-on-their-EZX-MotoMAGX-smartphone-platform-outside-of-China

Motorola hurt themselves with some bad decisions, but Apple did not single-handedly invent the modern smartphone. And I'm sure there are similar examples from other companies at the time. The fact that Apple executed better than their competitors has given them plenty of deserved success. It does not give them the right to hold a monopoly over the industry.

Re:Photo of phones before and after iphone

[jrumney]

So on one side, a complete mish mash of phones on the market before the iPhone, all different colors, shapes and sizes. Oh, and among them, top center, is a phone which apparently was the inspiration for the iPhone (possibly the LG Prada, but at that resolution it's difficult to tell). And on the other side, you have a careful selection of phones that look somewhat similar to the iPhone, which were launched after it. If I go down to my local phone store, I still see phones with keyboards, phones in various colors other than black, and even non-smartphones, so your picture is obviously biased towards making a point.

Motorola invented real technology

[walterbyrd]

Apple is suing over "inventions" like rounded corners, and slide-to-unlock - and a slew of other "inventions" that are actually prior art, or laughably trivial.

Only solution is to boycott Apple

[walterbyrd]

I will be glad to go first.

Apple may have some nice products, but there is nothing I can't live without. Unlike MS, few people are locked-in to Apple.

I suppose Apple will still make a small amount off it's junk patents. But, that only until Apple gets sued back in some serious way. Really, how much of Apple's bullshit do you think other companies are going to take, before they take some action back?

Re:Only solution is to boycott Apple

[Truedat]

Just wondering which honest and venerable businesses you will be supporting as an alternative.

Whoosh!

[jamrock]

People buy your products because they are original, innovative and useful. Litigation for profit is not original. Litigation for profit is not innovative. Litigation for profit is not useful.

You and so many others here just don't get it. Apple isn't interested in making money off Android. They want to kill it. The revenues from potential patent licenses, while nice, would be a rounding error on their P and L. Microsoft's motive may be partly for the profit (it's likely that their revenue from licensing patents to Android manufacturers exceeds their revenues from Windows Phone), but Apple is most assuredly not interested. Apple's motive is to chill Android's ascent, or preferably, kill the platform outright. There is apparently genuine anger inside Apple that is directed at Google because of Android; Apple feels that Google blatantly capitalized on Apple's hard work in birthing the iPhone and they're prepared to go to the mattresses to right the perceived wrong.

By making Android handsets more expensive to produce, Apple and Microsoft are adding friction to the adoption of Android, and both companies have large war chests they can use to open more fronts in their war against Google, the true enemy of both. Companies contemplating using Android will think twice before facing the two titans.

Re:Whoosh!

[Daniel Phillips]

Apple isn't interested in making money off Android. They want to kill it.

Oh, everybody gets that. If only because Steve Jobs literally stated it before he, ahem, died. Well, that karma thing you know.

Creativity and hard work are not always inventions

[Rob Y.]

Just because something's useful or was hard to come up with, doesn't mean it's an invention worthy of patent protection. I'm sure fashion designers work very hard and are quite brilliant at what they do. But they're not inventors.

Most of the cellphone UI patents that are gumming up the works are patents on metaphors used in a touch screen UI. 'Slide to unlock' is a metaphor for a slider switch implemented on a touch screen. It is not an invention - it's 'inventiveness' has nothing to do with how it's implemented. It's a simulation of a real-world device on a touch screen. The same could be said for scroll 'bounce'. It's a simulation of what happens when a display on a physical device is scrolled past it's physical end. It's clever to use this metaphor to enhance the UI experience, but it's not an invention.

And don't get me started on FAT32 long filenames. A bugfix masquerading as an invention, which is only even useful because a certain monopoly desktop OS requires it for plug-in devices to work. Inventive? Maybe. But mostly an 'inventive' way to extract monopoly tolls on every device designed to plug into a computer. Whether this is patentable or not, charging royalties for the ability to work with a Windows PC shouldn't be allowed under antitrust law.