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 ?

[Daniel Phillips]

Apparently, Apple and Microsoft are both counting on Linux to secure their retirement income.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is just as guilty of this as anyone. They also have no desire to actually push for patent reforms; as they also rely on many patents for their search business.

please point out one lawsuit that had to do with a google search patent. In fact google openly provided map reduce framework on handling large datasets a key to their search business.

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 ?

[mwvdlee]

No. Patents were intended to encourage inventors publically disclosing their inventions for future use by others by giving them limited protection if they do.
Patents were intended to serve society primarily, not inventors. Patented ideas are meant to be copied, just not now but when the patent runs out.
The alternative to patents are copyright law, where an inventor doesn't disclose anything, gets more protection and society gets less information.
The problem is that patent law has eroded into some form of copyright-for-ideas instead of a short-term protection in exchange for disclosure.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[aaaaaaargh!]

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.

The even worse problem is that this fear is justified.

Be it in software or hardware, an inventor nowadays has only two choices: Either you sell out your invention to one of the few big quasi-monopoly companies who hold large enough patent portfolios and bank accounts to defend themselves, or you have to make sure that you're not successful to stay under the radar of patent trolls.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[AliasMarlowe]

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.

At the moment, I have 30 issued US patents (sole inventor in some, joint inventor with my wife and/or other collaborators in others), and a few applications pending. They all involve physical apparatus, rather than pure method/process stuff. My own experience bears out your first point: that invention requires effort rather than genius. However, I'm not at all sure of your second point, below.

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.

The cost of reverse engineering a product is often just as high as the cost of inventing in the first place. Moreover, it costs the copier time to reverse engineer and set up production of the copy, and denies the copier the critical insights of why a product was made in a particular way. The knock-off is generally shoddy in comparison to the original, for this and other reasons. Also, since you'll presumably have a first-mover advantage, you'll get a good payoff from the high margin early-adopting customers, when there will be essentially no competition on price or quality.

Usually, the situation is that I have some problem to solve, and in forming the solution some novel method or device is created, or perhaps a few alternative solutions of varying merit are created. Clearly, these creations are useful, and we check carefully that they are novel. Their nonobviousness often relies on not knowing which problem is being addressed. Given a particular problem statement, many other engineers might have reached a similar solution. Often, it is recognizing the problem itself which leads to the invention. Lacking that critical step in the process, is it almost guaranteed that most copycats will be full of glitches and will not compete on performance, and those that perform adequately will be further delayed and will not compete on price.

We usually apply for patents on some of the alternative solutions we don't implement as well as those which we use, and on solutions to problems for which no product is planned. This creates uncertainty for competitors as they are not sure what exactly we're going to do (patent applications must be filed well before products are released). Do we patent every invention we implement in a product? No, of course not: we keep some as secrets, if it is judged very likely that the actual invention would not be reverse engineered, or that it would be too difficult to ascertain whether a competitor's product was infringing.

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:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[mwvdlee]

In software that mechanism isn't just broken, it's unneeded.

I disagree with the general notion that software should be unpatentable.

IMHO, there are software solutions that are truely novel and of sufficient complexity to warrant a patent.

All too often though, a software patent simply means "I thought of the problem first, now I own every solution to this problem"; they don't describe novel solutions but simply the same solution anybody would have found were they trying to solve the same problem. Overly broad patents describe problems, not solutions.

Also, in order for a patent to be useful (as in it's original intent; useful for society), it has to be copyable while the problem still requires solving in the way described in the patent. For software, this would mean that a software patent can last a few years at most.

Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ?

[scot4875]

The competitor can't just clone your product instantaneously.

And furthermore, if the competitor *can* clone the patented features of your product instantaneously, then your product's features probably don't deserve patent protection.

--Jeremy

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.

Re:lame

[VortexCortex]

Oh shit. There goes the planet.

There's nothing to worry about at the moment. Wait to start worrying until we have more details next year...
...Wait, you meant to reply to the asteroid story, right?

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.

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[fizzer06]

If you don't replace Android with Android and you hate Apple and Microsoft, what phone would you buy from?

Re:Can they sell OS free handsets?

[Em Adespoton]

What telco in their right mind would choose giving their customers choice over having to pay some license fees and passing on the cost to the customer in exchange for almost complete control of the hardware and softawre?

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?

[exomondo]

Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors.

Well given that i am none of those that disproves your theory, too bad for you. It also demonstrates that you ignorantly think that anyone that sues over patents is a 'patent troll', so you fail again.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[crazycheetah]

Get better sources.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[LordLucless]

I assert that you have your head up your ass. Please disprove.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[exomondo]

My quoting in no way changed the sense of your post. And would you please try to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. You might consider posting under your real name as well, if you have the courage.

Your quoting missed the crucial part, either intentionally or just a failure at reading comprehension:
"just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll"

The reality is that i stated the fact that there is more to being a 'patent troll' than simply filing a patent suit, just doing that does not make anyone a 'patent troll'. Your responses confirm you either have no understanding whatsoever of the term 'patent troll' (especially given you have not responded with what you understand the definition to be) or that you initially failed at reading comprehension and now for some reason don't want to admit it.

But go ahead and detail exactly how noting such a fact would make me an 'apologist' or 'fanboi' or 'spin doctor' and what you believe such things to be, you're probably wrong given your obvious lack on understanding of the term 'patent troll'.
Also perhaps point out how there being more to being a 'patent troll' than just suing someone over patents is a logical fallacy, naturally omitting the 'just' from the beginning of the quoted passage may lead you to that conclusion, but that's your failure, not mine, the post is perfectly accurate.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[Daniel Phillips]

No wonder Apple's brand is slipping.

Re:Apple becoming a patent troll?

[exomondo]

You said, and I quote: "just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll." Which is a non sequitur, pure and simple, popularly known as a logical fallacy.

Rubbish, read the whole quote:
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.

Given that Apple doesn't fit the description of a patent troll - as described in the first half of the sentence - the obvious and logical conclusion is that they are not a patent troll.

First, your premise may well be false, but whether it is true or false, your purported conclusion does not follow from it. Your use of the word "just" in no way changes the sense of the perfectly simple English sentence you wrote, in spite of how you might want to spin that.

And you only quoted half of because you either failed at reading comprehension or you have an irrational hatred that you seek to satisfy. The fact is they do not fit that definition, frivolous litigators? I believe so. Exploiting lack of labour regulation in overseas countries? Again, yes i would say so, especially since they make so much profit on their devices.

In any case, Apple is a dispicable organization [macgasm.net] that seems determined to become even more so

I wouldn't argue with that, their working conditions seem terrible particularly given the profits they make and they continue with ridiculously frivolous lawsuits like the one against samsung regarding design patents, but the fact is that they are not a patent troll and do not fit the definition of such, but of course you can't comprehend that because you don't know what a patent troll is.

By the way, it would seem that you lack courage

Speaking of non-sequitur, you using the name Daniel Phillips does not in any way shape or form mean that is your real name.

I'm not about to say Apple are great, they are far from it and most certainly should be leading the industry given their market position, many of their lawsuits appear frivolous and anti-competitive but I'm also not going to say they are a patent troll because that is factually false. You however don't seem to care about facts, you just want to call apple any name you possibly can.

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.

The more I see Apple playing patent troll...

[BulletMagnet]

The more I wish Gates would have pissed on Jobs back in 1997........

Re:The more I see Apple playing patent troll...

[domatic]

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

The meme that Apple invented all that is touchscreen and froody needs to die. The reality is Apple is doing what Apple always does: makes some slickly packaged incremental improvements to the innovations of others then screams they invented it all.

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[WankersRevenge]

I feel the same way about game consoles. But with smart phones and tablets, I think both Microsoft and Apple see the writing on the wall.

Just for the record, I'm an iOS dev. I've avoided Android devices pretty much because I wasn't interested in the OS. Well, recently, I've been expanding my skillset and started branching out. I picked up a Galaxy Tab for a learning / development machine. I didn't like it at first but it became a slow burn and I found myself really enjoying the os (I find the back button for applications to be a brilliant os concept).

While I still prefer the overall experience of an iPad, it's painfully obvious that the "tablet gap" (cue strangelove) is being closed. I can't see Apple staying on top much longer and I'm guessing with their litigation spree, neither can they. It's literally Apple versus the world and those aren't very good odds.

If both companies manage to get a chuck of every tablet phone sale, they kind of win in a very shady way. The real thing to do is get rid of software patents or limit them to an ultra small window (a year at most). I don't see that ever happening unless we somehow divorce money from politics, but that's a whole different issue.

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[ozmanjusri]

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

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[Daniel Phillips]

I find the back button for applications to be a brilliant os concept.

True. It is a sensible API that has a natural interpretation: return to the context from which the current context was invoked, whether that be another application, an earlier frame of the browser chain or whatever. Now the obvious: forward is equally natural and is blatantly not there in Android. How many times have I hit the "back", ending up back in the application list or somewhere, and have to go hunting around to get back into the application context I just left? Which by the way is still running by the "apps never exit" rule. So obviously what I really want is a forward button, right next the the back button as is right and proper. Whenever that makes sense of course. Note to Android devs: quick, implement this before troll Apple claims to own the patent.

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[crunch-banger]

Now that almost 50% of adults own smart phones I'm not sure we should call them smartphones anymore...

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[Daniel Phillips]

I know that. It is no substitute for the obviously missing "forward" button.

Re:Photo of phones before and after iphone

[Anonymous Coward]

Your picture is complete bullshit. How about pick phones that are actually a realistic example for the before and after? No, you can't do that, because it would completely destroy your point.

1. WAY too many dumb phones on there, which is completely irrelevant
2. Complete lack of the many phones that should be on the "before" image that actually look really damn similar to the phones on the "after" image.
3. It's fucking easy to make these pictures with a ridiculous bias, and this picture screams bias like a mother fucker.

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:Fuck Apple

[Skapare]

Sorry, but they already have the patent on that.

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[0123456]

Now that almost 50% of adults own smart phones I'm not sure we should call them smartphones anymore...

The smart people have dumb phones or no phone at all. Only the dumb people need to update Facebook every five minutes.

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.

Can *you* deny that Apple did not borrow ideas?

[walterbyrd]

Jobs was notorious for stealing the ideas of others.

If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone.ars

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.

Re:Only solution is to boycott Apple

[whisper_jeff]

Really, how much of Apple's bullshit do you think other companies are going to take, before they take some action back?

This comes _AFTER_ companies like Motorola demanded 2.25% for industry essential FRAND patents from Apple. Did you call for a boycott of Motorola for blatant and disgusting abuse of the patent system? Did you ask "how much of Motorola's bullshit are companies going to take before they take some action back?" No. Of course not.

Seriously, pull your head out of the sand. Look around and see things as they really are.

Re:Only solution is to boycott Apple

[MrMickS]

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?

How is this insightful? Its full of the same misguided claptrap that permiates slashdot and pretty much every tech forum. The discussion, if you can call it that, has descended to the level of an early Hollywoodland black and white movie. There is no attempt to actually look into the issues, in fact there is no need. Apple and Microsoft are the good guys, Google and any Android manufacturer are the good guys. The merits of any individual measure are immaterial. /rant

If its so much bullshit can you please explain why the judge has ruled in the way that they have? That Motorola and Google have to provide information to Apple. If you can do so in a manner that does imply, infer, or state that the judge is a fanboi or on Apple's payroll that would be a benefit. Perhaps that post might be insightful.

I remember when things got discussed on Slashdot. Sadly that was a long time ago.

Re:Only solution is to boycott Apple

[_8553454222834292266]

If its so much bullshit can you please explain why the judge has ruled in the way that they have?

Because it's a judge, it has to rule based on law. People are mad at the entire system and want the laws changed or eliminated. Don't see how what the judge does or does not think would really matter to someone who takes issue with the current patent system.

People seem to be focusing on Apple because they're in the news a lot and they're going after companies people don't hate such as Google. Other patent stuff doesn't seem to get as much negative publicity.

Re:Only solution is to boycott Apple

[Truedat]

Anybody

any android maker is far better than apple

And yet still you won't commit.

Microsoft? Sony? Verizon? Amazon? Samsung? Google???

I'm asking because if you want to set an example for us to follow, then convince us that we aren't being fucked just as hard with sharp business practices, privacy violations and "Foxconn inside". You know, all that bullshit that you said you were concerned about.

This is not the end of it, far from it

[walterbyrd]

We can expect MS and Apple to keep churning out junk patents, and to keep forcing other companies to pay for their bogus "inventions."

Re:Going both ways...

[HarrySquatter]

Yes, and you would be making an extremely stupid move as you would get slapped down so fast by the courts for doing so. Motorola and Samsung were both already struck down for trying to play games with FRAND patents.

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.

Who wants to be my FRAND?

[oxdas]

The big loser here seems to be standards. If Apple and Microsoft can extort large amounts of money for essentially fringe patents, what incentives do companies like Motorola and Samsung have to join their core technology patents to standards? This wasn't a big deal when it was just a few patent trolls, but the game has changed. The reason companies like standards and patent pools is to mitigate risk, especially legal risk. If standards no longer encourage everyone to play nice, then I fear for a more fragmented system, where tech moves slowly because everyone is developing against each other instead of with each other. But we now live in a world where a bouncing screen effect is worth billions, but the hardware implementations it runs on are worth much less.

Patents

[Taco Cowboy]

As one who owns 3 patents here is my humble opinion:

It has passed time that the patent system be gutted

The patent system was set up to encourage innovation, but the effect in recent years has been exactly the opposite

To come up with innovative ideas isn't hard - trust me, my 3 patents testify to that - but to make sure that no megacorp gets rich with your innovative ideas without paying is just too damn crazy --- I had to pay 3 big law firms to carry out separate international patent searches in order to make sure that *MY* innovative ideas were original

Why 3 law firms instead of one? Because I just do not have the deep pockets of the megacorps and I do not want to end up letting the patent trolls profiting from *MY* ideas

If the patent system is gutted today, I will not lose even one minute of sleep - sure I'll lose some $$$ but compare to the loss of those patent trolls, my lose is insignificant

As per why I patent those ideas in the first place? Well, if I don't, then some mofos hired by those patent trolls will eventually patent them to make even more megabucks

True, I do charge for those who are using my patents, but only for pennies per device, depending on volume

Re:Between Apple and Microsoft

[ozmanjusri]

Are you trolling?

The buyer is at no risk from GPL violations. THEY are the people the GPL was designed to protect.

Even the resellers are mostly using generic AOSP distros on the phones, while chipset vendors like Allwinner and MediaTek are genereally LESS precious than more established vendors when it comes to sharing code.

Can you link to any GPL violations?

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.

Re:Motorola wants fair treatment for real technolo

[whisper_jeff]

FRAND means you _MUST_ license the patent to ANYONE at a FAIR AND REASONABLE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY rate. 2.25% is not _reasonable_ and I doubt Motorola charges that same rate to other companies which means they are discriminating. Look, it's simple - Motorola (and Samsung) are abusing FRAND patents. Pure and simple. Stop ignoring what's going on just because you don't like Apple.