Slashdot Mirror
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.
So some manufacturers will end up paying Apple and Microsoft per device sold ? That's crazy.
New things are always on the horizon
Neither company can innovate so they are leeching off those than can. And we suffer.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
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?
The more I wish Gates would have pissed on Jobs back in 1997........
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.
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?
Buy a cheap knock-off China phone. It's the only ethical choice.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
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.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Get better sources.
Ahem
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.
Sorry, but they already have the patent on that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
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
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?
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.
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...