Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Court Upholds Ban On Push Email In Apple's iCloud, MobileMe

Posted by timothy on from the awfully-specific-aren't-we? dept.

suraj.sun writes "A German regional court Friday backed an earlier court decision that banned Apple from offering push emails in Apple's iCloud and MobileMe services in Germany, granting Motorola Mobility a victory in a global patent war among several technology companies. The Mannheim regional court also said Apple must pay damages to Motorola Mobility, but didn't specify the amount."

42 comments

  1. another sad example by hyanakin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... how copyright and patent law holds back progress and stiffles competition -- all on the back of consumers.

    1. Re:another sad example by moronoxyd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What has a patent dispute between Apple and Motorola to do with politics?
      (Note: since both companies are American, this isn't even protectionism for the native industry.)

    2. Re:another sad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything.

    3. Re:another sad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain? It's not immediately obvious how the politics of the economic crisis (in particular EU vs. Greece) has anything to do with patent litigation.

    4. Re:another sad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This!

      How exactly do customers benefit from not having push emails in iCloud and MobileMe? Or, for that matter, from not having a cool slide-to-unlock on Android? They aren't. Logical consequence: These companies are not acting to serve customers anymore (no, I'm not cynic enough to declare that a premise).

      On a side note, I'm starting to think like this: These companies chose to fight a patent war, so they have lost any justification for missing features. Ex.: Apple chose to fight a patent war, and missing push emails is a consequence of that, so Apple is to blame for missing push emails, not Motorola Mobility. Likewise, Google is to blame for missing a cool slide-to-unlock, not Apple. "We can't to that because of patents" isn't an excuse anymore when you start bullying others with patents.

    5. Re:another sad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!
      You cannot blame anyone for defending his patents.
      "the thief has the right to blame the homeowner for not being able to steal, because of $X prevention/security system"
      never heared such BS before.

      It is fully ok they do patent wars.
      The thing is: they should have NEVER be ABLE to get those trivialities patented!
      fight softwearepatents!

    6. Re:another sad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe so. But it's a great example of how a newish company shouldn't get into legal pissing matches with companies that have been around FOREVER and all but invented all the technology we use.

      Apple has been what you could call a 'dickwad company' since woz left. Lawyers first. Talk second. They got some real lucky breaks with their latest ifad everything. But long term that alone wont cut it. And suing everyone won't either.

      It's not suprising that attitude has come back to bite them in the ass. They have no goodwill left from anyone except their own users. And they seem to be trying to kill that too every chance they get...

    7. Re:another sad example by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      How exactly do customers benefit from not having push emails in iCloud and MobileMe? Or, for that matter, from not having a cool slide-to-unlock on Android? They aren't. Logical consequence: These companies are not acting to serve customers anymore (no, I'm not cynic enough to declare that a premise).

      Sure they are. Motorola Mobility invented the technology, and is willing to let their customers use it. The problem is that Apple's customers are not paying Motorola Mobility for use of that technology. Apple wants to steal the technology from Motorola Mobility and sell it to Apple's customers.

      Of course, you might say that the technology shouldn't be owned by Motorola Mobility, but that's a completely different topic. Either the patent is valid, or it isn't. Assuming it is valid (and the German courts apparently believe so), then Apple should just license the technology from Motorola Mobility. That would avoid a "patent war".

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    8. Re:another sad example by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 1

      What has the law and its enforcement got to do with politics?

      Pretty sure his next post will explain how the Military Industrial Complex is inventing these companies just to troll one another in patent fights in order to milk billions and billions of dollars more from innocent, unsuspecting world citizens while simultaneously funding World War III and helping Iran to create tons and tons of Uranium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulators as well as the newer, more terrifying Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulators.

      If you'd just open your eyes and stop believing what is spoon fed to you by the elite banker controlled media (aka, slashdot), then you would have clearly seen this.

    9. Re:another sad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Insightful"? Really?

      Troll is more like it.

    10. Re:another sad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain? It's not immediately obvious how the politics of the economic crisis (in particular EU vs. Greece) has anything to do with patent litigation.

      Obviously it's the butterfly effect.

    11. Re:another sad example by Goaway · · Score: 1

      How exactly do customers benefit from not having push emails in iCloud and MobileMe?

      How do customers benefit from any patent on anything? The entire point of patents is to limit availability of a product. This is the case with every patent, not just this one.

      And the benefit to customers is supposed to be that that product gets developed at all.

    12. Re:another sad example by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Oh I like it. Let everyone lose over patent wars. Besides killing useless patent pools, they will at one point discover that patents hurt more than they bring to the table and this whole patent shithole can be sealed of.

      I have been waiting for the big guys to start fighting this war and I'm enjoying it! Only this way free software and the small guys can shake of the patent hell, since talking and protesting didn't work.

      --
      Here be signatures
    13. Re:another sad example by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You could almost say the Germans are being software patent Na...

      Sorry, unintentional ellipses and double-spaced newline. As I was saying, it seems like the Germans are being quite the software patent naggers.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  2. Enforcement? by rusty0101 · · Score: 2

    This is the suit that Apple has attempted to end run the penalty by filing suit in the US against Motorola asking the courts to prevent Motorola from enforcing the ruling in Germany. The question I have is _in Germany_ who enforces court rulings? The petitioner, or an agent of the court?

    It may be that since damages Apple must pay to Motorola are unspecified at this time, that the court in Germany may hold off on specifying them until the case in the US is decided. After all if the only penalty that Apple can declare has been adjudicated in Germany is that they can't offer the service without getting a patent licence, that may be all that the court in the US says they have to do, and there is nothing in the filing that is preventing Apple from doing that. If Apple seeks a license from Motorola, then Germany has a basis for declaring damages based on the negotiated license requirements.

    --
    You never know...
    1. Re:Enforcement? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 4, Informative

      The question I have is _in Germany_ who enforces court rulings? The petitioner, or an agent of the court?

      Normal court rulings are enforced by the court itself, injunctions have to be enforced by the petitioner via a bailiff, according to de.wikipedia.

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    2. Re:Enforcement? by Dupple · · Score: 3, Informative

      That was Microsoft that was attempting the end run

      http://allthingsd.com/20120411/microsoft-says-ruling-in-motorola-case-will-prevent-an-injunction-at-least-for-now/

      --
      Watch those corners
    3. Re:Enforcement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't the suit involved in the US injunction. This patent is not standards essential so not committed to FRAND licensing and Googorola can enforce all the German courts will allow.

      There may even be a third case in Germany also working its way through a different district (each of which are competing to be the East Texas of Europe).

    4. Re:Enforcement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every German court has bailiffs who enforce rulings (if necessary with Police) and hand over injunctions.

      Injunctions are supposed to be adhered. If that doesn't happen the plaintiff can contact the court, his lawyer or the police (e.g. in case the of direct danger).

      Then the department of public prosecution gets informed subsequently that the defendant did not adhere the Injunction. From that point on anything can happen with the defendant.

      I am no lawyer but I don't think this is much different in other countries.

    5. Re:Enforcement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confused, it was Microsoft 'end running'

      http://www.techworld.com.au/article/421282/u_judge_orders_motorola_enforce_microsoft_injunction_germany

    6. Re:Enforcement? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Well, the parent mixed up two cases I think, because the end-run was actually done by MS.

      However, let's ignore than and suppose that it was Apple. Nobody is questioning that the German court is able to enforce its injunctions, but only that such enforcement is likely to have little practical effect on the company it is issued against. The most the German court can do is block all imports of Apple products, and seize all Apple assets they have control over. Then all the US court has to do is have Motorola reimburse Apple for those losses in the US, and since both companies have more assets in the US than in Germany, in the end Apple comes out ahead despite losing the case in Germany.

      This isn't unlike Slashdot geeks getting worked up about the RIAA and declaring that they're going to boycott any music purchases. The RIAA just yawns at the resulting 0.01% loss and keeps collecting their 99 cents/track while suing the parents of teenagers.

      Now, again, the US case didn't involve Apple, so none of the above is actually going to happen. It is probably worth noting that inside the German market the actions of the German court certainly will have quite visible effects regardless.

    7. Re:Enforcement? by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      To the several who corrected my misunderstanding, thank you.

      --
      You never know...
  3. Motoralla-Germany vs. Apple-USA by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    With all the recent injunctions against each other in the different countries, they should each pick a champion. 15 rounds, winner takes all, and the loser's fans have to chant "Rocky!" (What, I'm from Philadelphia.)

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  4. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Anyone else read that as Putsch email?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone else read that as Putsch email?

      No.

  5. Hopefully next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    German court finds American judge in contempt of German court.

  6. Re:Bye Motorola by icebraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't buy phones from companies that have sued over patents, I'm pretty sure you'll remain phoneless. Unless you get an openmoko or something similar.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  7. Mixed feelings by Cigaes · · Score: 1

    On one hand, people who sold their freedom for a few more blinking lights got exactly what they deserved. This is, at some level, deeply satisfying. The same went on, for example, when VLC had to be removed from the apple application store due to GPL incompatibility (and do not forgot that GPL is not just a license, it is a weapon against proprietary software and closed platforms: it was doing exactly what it was designed to do).

    On the other hand, a court of justice upholding a trivial software patent is not a good news at all.

    In this particular case, I am afraid that the second consideration is overwhelmingly more serious than the first.

  8. Re:Bye Motorola by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 0

    Apple sued to get rid of android and android phones from the market other sued to get money

    --
    Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
  9. Patents are not property by Cigaes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please refrain from using words as “thief” when writing about patents. Patents are a temporary monopoly awarded in exchange for publication of an idea. They have nothing to do with property. An idea can not be stolen. Using that kind of vocabulary only makes the patents and copyright's advocates' game.

    On the other hand, you are perfectly right to underline that these kind of patents are ludicrous.

    1. Re:Patents are not property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, ideas can be stolen alright. That's why there are trade secrets. But those are a different matter, in that you now it's going to be harder for others to find out, so instead, you don't make it public.

    2. Re:Patents are not property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please refrain from using words as “thief” when writing about patents. An idea can not be stolen.

      Sure. Come up with an idea for a Star Trek movie. Pitch it to Paramount. They dismiss it out of hand, but then make a movie using that idea, and make a billion dollars. You get nothing. But that's okay, right? I mean, you've still got your idea sitting there in your head, right? So nothing was stolen?

  10. Re:Cest la vie by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    By "everyone" I assume you mean "Samsung".

    How does this relate to Motorola, the FRAND abuser? At least this patent isn't covered by FRAND - I guess they got lucky and picked one that wasn't.

    Icons in a grid and rounded corners really must have been "brilliant ideas" though, given that they sell the top 3 smartphones. Just a thought.

    DISCLAIMER: Apple's lawsuit over slide to unlock and other nonsense are stupid. Some of this post may be facetious. YMMV.

  11. shidik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i like it,,, thanks

  12. thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks for your post... and the best for apple.slashdot.org
    blogshidik

  13. Re:Cest la vie by fwoop · · Score: 1

    ...as are Apple's lawsuits against companies like HTC over multitouch. And now Motorola has a huge billion dollar war chest thanks to Google. Yes, I think Apple is getting exactly what it deserves. Apple can make this all go away tomorrow by ... gasp ... negotiating with Google and Android hanset manufacturers and coming to a licensing agreement, and letting the free market decide. Imagine that, billions spent on innovation vs lawyers. The alternative of living by the sword is dying by the sword.

  14. Re:Bye Motorola by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Unless you get an openmoko or something similar.

    Even then, e.g. FreeRunner runs on a Samsung SoC.