Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Scores Patent Wins Over Microsoft, Apple
tlhIngan writes "This week is Motorola's lucky week; they've won twice in two separate patent suits. First, an ITC judge has ruled that Microsoft's Xbox 360 has violated 4 of 5 patents related to h.264. This is just a preliminary ruling (PDF) and both Microsoft and Motorola will face an ITC panel later this year. In the other case, the ITC judge has ruled Apple violates a 3G patent, one that a German court ruled that Apple didn't violate earlier this year. "
It will be interesting to see if this will play into the EU investigation.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
And by reform, I mean, abolition?
Come on guys. It never works. The only people getting rich off it are the lawyers. The rest of the world is laughing at us over it.
Let's put those dollars towards creating jobs and innovating.
Hello, Obama? Anyone home? There's a campaign donation in it for you from a few big tech luminaries, I'm pretty sure.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Isn't it interesting how the tech industry is increasingly about patents?
Does Moto even make phones anymore? But who cares? As long as they have good patents, they can make money.
Then the patent is invalid.
The world is ill-served by "imaginary Property"..
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
I think the patent system is fundamentally broken. Isn't it that patents should help you to give birth to a vision (not trivial things), without being stolen/copied from competition? So you get the patent, manage to produce the product and sell it, that's OK. But if you screw up your patent, you can't deliver, your company goes bankrupt, etc. it would be good to delete the patent and make it unpatentable, open for everybody ! NO SELLING, BUYING, SPECUTAION ! IMHO BTW: I thing Douglas Adams invented the iPad, Jobs just copied :)
...violated 4 of 5 patents related to h.264
So this is the next standard for video on the web they're talking about?
Ans. whatever the patent holder thinks the market will bear. In other words, it's an almost meaningless agreement.
The people who craft industry standards like H.264 need to do better than this.
Note: This is Motorola Mobility, which ultimately means Google.
Breakfast served all day!
Given Microsoft's bullying of Android - an area where they don't even compete - I'm quite happy to see them coming out on the short-end of this stick. When I buy Android it's in part because I don't want to give my money to Microsoft or Apple. Now let's see a good strong Apple defeat such that Motorola (and other Android vendors) resolve these issues through cross-licensing instead of money.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's approaching quickly.
--
BMO
So Microsoft and Apple both wanted to screw up web video by only supporting the heavily patented H.264 standard instead of Google's open Web-M standard. So Google went and bought Motorola Mobility and is now throwing their own patent strategy back at them. If they claim H.264 isn't patentable than they lose that way otherwise Google can charge huge royalties and make them pay for being so greedy.
Brilliant chess moves as usual by the Google team.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the title be "Google Scores Patent Wins..."? When Google buys Motorola mobile division they take ownership, no? And yeah, what has been/will undoubtedly be repeated, retool this joke we call 'Patent Law'.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
"In the other case, the ITC judge has ruled Apple violates a 3G patent, one that a German court ruled that Apple didn't violate earlier this year." The courts aren't an ass it's just where they keep their heads. How can anyone hope to abide by copyright rules when even the courts can't sort out the mess!
And so began the great Worldwide Patent War of 2012.
Motorola launched and scored a hit with their patent.
Apple and Microsoft panic and fire off their arsenal of patents. Facebook, Samsung, Google, IBM, etc. all get pulled into it.
Yahoo! takes the opportunity to launch a sneak attack at Facebook. The patent scores a critical hit with the assistance of a clueless judge setting a new precedent.
Patent trolls rejoice at this and proceed to crawl out of the woodwork to start flinging their own patents around...
The MPAA/RIAA become jealous that there is all these lawsuits going around and they aren't getting a piece of the action. So they sue all of the above companies for lost sales, since all the money they're spending on lawsuits would have been used to license music/movies through them.
Motorola refusing to license FRAND patents under FRAND terms does no one any good. Hopefully Google won't fall into the same vein. The terms require that a patent be offered, and it should NOT require a company to offer up it's own IP in order to obtain use of a FRAND patent.
Because for the last 20 years Moto has sucked as a company and generally failed at everything. Trying to save the company through lawsuits is a sure sign of that.
OK. Here's how software patents work.
There are hundreds of thousands of them. None of them required any investment to develop. They simply memorialize things that everyone always did - commenting inside of curly braces, using tables for compression, having the "AM" flip to "PM" when you scroll the hours past noon, having plugins in web browsers and "one click purchase buttons" and so forth.
No one can ever know what their work infringes on. Not even Microsoft or Google, who have carte blance budgets for such things. They simply write code and wait to get sued.
Even if the software patent fairy came down and waved her little magic wand, and you could know exactly which hundreds or thousands of patents you infringed, it would be worthless by tomorrow. Thousands of new patents are filed every day.
The only effect that software patents can have is to make every piece of code a ticking patent time bomb.
The scam was supported by a few, like Microsoft, because they saw it as a way to prevent competition and hurt free markets. They need only send part of their multi-million dollar legal team to the patent mines and amass a "war chest" that would enable them to sue others, and countersue when they were, themselves, inevitably brought to court. This would have the effect of making it impossible for anyone to write software without having a multi-million (these days multi-billion) investment in patent lawyers.
The only reason the U.S. has a functioning software industry is that the practice of using these patents is so repugnant and ridiculous that most businesses and all individuals ignore them.
Unfortunately, in their haste, cupidity and basic ignorance of cause an effect, backers like Microsoft neglected to realize that they would create a new kind of company, called a patent troll. These companies would buy patents that Microsoft was violating, and sue them. But Microsoft's patent war chest would be unusable as a defense, because patent trolls are very careful to do absolutely no useful work of any kind. Their entire business is suing the people who do actually do useful work. MS has already had 9-10 figures in judgments come in against them from trolls and they have had a few close calls with actually having to pay out.
If you are wondering who created software patent law, the answer is, not congress. Some lawyers tried it, and it flew, and it's happened all on its own - a little power grab by the patent bar and the USPTO.
This is partly why so few industrialized countries other than the U.S. have a software patent regime the way we do, because it is so prima facie ridiculous. They have been rejected in Europe and Asia. We are an international laughing stock for having such an obviously corrupt practice.
Meanwhile there is very little basis for software patent law to exist even on this basis in the U.S.. The Supreme Court has already famously struck down patents on i.e. math equations, which are vanishingly similar. They came quite close to explicitly striking down software patents already in En Re Bilski. The whole game will be up before long - no one has any choice. The more the practice grows, the faster it chokes itself off.
Good day, sir. Respond if you like, I won't read it.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
OK, so any big company gotta have lawyers to deal with business issues but geez, I remember back in 20th century when Motorola made components (transistors, ICs), TV sets ("works in a drawer" I remember seeing the commercial then going to a friend's house to pull it out and see inside), and the best two-way radios. They were really ***expensive*** but damn them Mocom-70s can easily last 30 years, couldn't be narrowbanded but take the trunkmount units and be used as armor plating. And the HT-200s can chock a runaway railroad car or withstand a nuclear blast at 50 yards (OK so I made up the last two). Nowadays, I only hear about the Big /\/\ when they're suing someone or offshoring one of their enterprises.
mfwright@batnet.com
Maybe Microsoft and Apple should not have started the war by suing Android manufacturers.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Waitasec, didn't Google just pay expensive engineers for the free and open VP8 standard?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Only Microsoft and Apple supported h.264 in this version of the browser wars.
Couldn't happen to nicer people. This is why Google and Mozilla supported WebM because of BS like this. For those defending h.264 all I have to say is I told you so. Maybe next time do not be so gung ho on supporting patented technology as standards.
http://saveie6.com/
So was drafting the W3C standards and EMCA aka javascript. You do not see these organizations patenting everything to the wazoo do you?
In the old days companies worked together to create something for the mutual benefit to both companies and the industry. Everyone wins with little to no risk. PowerPC was such a project by Motorola, Apple, and IBM. Infact, Apple and IBM were competitors and they still worked together with software as well.
IBM of old had great leaders and did good things with the one exception of letting Bill Gates clone the IBM DOS for clone makers.
Today, everyone is just trying to get steal from one another and hurt the other guy rather than make money.
http://saveie6.com/
Except that it doesn't. Google will inherit anything Motorola Mobility gets out of this if China approves the acquisition, but until then Google doesn't have management control over Motorola Mobility.
No, because Google doesn't own Motorola Mobility yet (and may never own it) since the Chinese government still hasn't approved the purchase.
Yes, if Google is allowed to buy Motorola Mobility, it will take ownership, but that hasn't happened yet, and might not ever happen.
Where did Motorola refuse to license patents related to h.264 to Microsoft to be used on the Xbox 360?
I mean it is Microsoft who is threatening Google downstream developers over their use of Android. Answer the first point first ..
AccountKiller
Javascript was originally developed by Netscape, a company which no longer exists.
It is funny that you think companies worked together to benefit the industry, and use PowerPC as an example of that. PowerPC was not done for some altruistic reason like 'benefit the industry', it was done to hurt Intel. It failed at that.
It is even funnier that you think IBM of old had great leaders (I am guessing you are including the PowerPC decision in that greatness). The Apple-Motorola-IBM deal was done by John Akers, who led the company to it's near destruction. Hardly a great leader. On the other hand, their really great leaders were the Watsons, and they had several antitrust suits against them to force licensing of their patents. Today IBM has an enormous patent portfolio which they license as they see fit.
or android users
maybe microsoft and apple should team up against "googorola"
thn again, they'd never agree on "applesoft" or "microple"
actually, who cares, they'll all eventually be bought out by samsung anyway
Motorola refusing to license FRAND patents under FRAND terms does no one any good. Hopefully Google won't fall into the same vein. The terms require that a patent be offered, and it should NOT require a company to offer up it's own IP in order to obtain use of a FRAND patent.
Yes, and Microsoft trying to extort both extreme license fees and an actual veto over future Android design features with absolutely crap patents does no one any good either.
Oh, excuse me, just how many shares of Microsoft do you own again?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Google makes it's money selling ads. A free and open web is beneficial to them because they can use that free and open web to sell their product.
The other companies make their money selling hardware and software. To them, free and open means nothing but a race to the bottom, something which no-one wants.
Javascript was originally developed by Netscape, a company which no longer exists.
The fact that they no longer exist is probably the only thing that is keeping Oracle from suing them as well.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Let's hope we don't see those Javascript patent suits. Microsoft just bought the Netscape patents from AOL.
Who am I kidding. They're probably herding up a horde of lawyers to sue The Internet right now.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Now, I know that Slashdot, despite its "slashdot.org" domain name [1] is a for-profit company, and I know that you need to make money to stay in business... but do you have to resort to trolling to do so?
My subscription is nearly up [2], and if you guys need money that badly, why not just ask?
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Don't you think that it is about time that you reverse the DNS entries, and have slashdot.org point to slashdot.com, instead of the other way around? Let's face it, you're not a ".org", nor have you been, for a LONG time.Why not honor Internet conventions? Or,is this a way of saying that Slashdot is not making a profit?
[2] BTW, somewhere along the line, though I PAID for the privilege, I lost the magic subscriber star that every other subscriber gets, and I've not seen it for years now.
From my Subscriber page:
You have paid for a total of 25000 pages and so far 21550 have been used up (10 today). Thank you for supporting Slashdot! We appreciate your contribution very much.
So, basically, you've taken my money, and somewhere along the line deprived me of the benefits for which I have paid. I emailed once, asking about this, but got no reply. I'll try again, but I doubt it will help.
Frand Patent
You know, I've been wondering, if it would be possible to make an argument based on the "Fair" portion of FRAND; that the relationship goes both ways, with Fairness involving a two-way element of reciprocity between parties.
As such, it could be argued that cooperation should be an integral part of receiving FRAND licensing, and Apple was not playing nicely with others.
We don't know if the actions of motorola and apple and Microsoft are related. It could be that motorola are evil all by themselves.
Microkiapple?
Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
The terms Apple wanted were better than the FRAND terms offered.
Apple wanted the same terms as the members of the GSM Alliance get - these are patent holders of GSM (and other mobile technology) patents who have pooled their patents and cross-license them. Obviously, if you are offering something then you get something back. If you're not putting patents into the pool then your licensing costs are going to be higher as you're not contributing.
See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/nokia-apple-payments-to-nokia-settle-all-litigation.html for the similar Nokia - Apple case where Apple were found to be infringing on Nokia's patents where Apple demanded better than FRAND terms.
It makes no difference what Apple and Microsoft did.
If you cause criminal damage to my car then the correct recourse is to call the police. I'm not justified in returning the favour and damaging your car.
Motorola has an obligation to licence the 3G patent under FRAND terms (as a condition of having it included in the standard) and it has clearly refused to do so. There's no way Apple simply "forgot" about this patent - they have been in discussions with Motorola about it for years, but clearly disagree on what a "fair and non-discriminatory" price is, given that Moto are clearly major competitors of Apple (and are facing other lawsuits from them).
It sets a dangerous precedent to allow them to do this. Now anyone with a patent in a FRAND-covered pool is free to bully another competitor and can safely ignore the FRAND terms designed to prevent abuse. Shame really.
I am fascinated by your post - which I contains so much information that is outright wrong as to appear to be a deliberate attempt to advocate by deception.
[Citation needed]
Can you cite a software patent that has merit? I have read close on 50 at this point and seen hundreds of summaries and have yet to see it.
For further reference, a post by a different user.
Yes, but the nice part is that you're not going to be responsible for damages until you do get notified that you infringe.
This is part of how software patents kill the economy and destroy jobs, because the "damages" are a legal negotiation of unlimited dimension and cost, that can be held at any time with hundreds or thousands of unknown individuals, some of whom may just be trolls out for a quick mugging, and some may be convicted monopolists like Microsoft who wish to destroy potentially competitive businesses rather than negotiate a "fair" price for, I don't know, their patent on page up and page down. Then their license cannot be had at any cost.
Or you can just not go into business. Which was the point, originally.
Your software that exists today cannot possibly infringe any patent that is filed for tomorrow, by definition.
That was great, it was true.
You'll notice that this didn't mitigate the software patent problem at all, since prior art is virtually ubiquitous among software patents.
You still get to have a multimillion dollar lawsuit proving it. So, discovery, evidentiary quality, motions, debate over applicability, etc etc. All at $500 per hour, on both sides.
But your own AIA instituted First to File, so you are precisely wrong, now, no?
You may have missed Congress passing the AIA
Software and "Business Method" Changes: There has been much debate in recent years in the software community about the propriety of software patents, and the America Invents Act does little to clear that up, except in a few minor niches. One provision, for example, specifically excludes tax preparation software from a rule prohibiting the patenting of tax strategies, and another creates a way to defeat patents related to financial products, with the aim of quashing a certain group of patents for check-imaging software.
--5 Key Facts About Patent Reform Act
Actually, Europe has exactly the same rules as the US on software patents
A categorical and obvious lie. Please see the Proposed Directive on the Patentability of Computer-implemented Inventions of 2002.
There will always be gray areas, as there are in the EU (where patenting software is, if not impossible, very difficult), but the attempt to bring a US-style, "liberal" software patent regime to Europe categorically failed, and the ensuing controversy shed light on the underlying issue: that large companies, especially American ones, had the idea of using patent law as an tool to prevent competition.
The UK is following the EU. India and China do indeed reject them. I'm unaware of Russia or Brazil's policy. But their policies, collectively, matter at least as much as the US and EU.
Japan, South Korea, and some others do allow software patents as of now. Hence this gem from wikipedia:
In South Korea, software is considered patentable and many patents directed towards "computer programs" have been issued.[23] In 2006, Microsoft was ordered to halt sales of its "Office" suite due to a patent infringement ruling by the Supreme Court of Korea.[24][not in citation given] The company was found to have infringed upon patents directed towards aut
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Motorola sued Apple first. They sued before Apple started suing Android manufacturers. I'm not defending Apple or Microsoft or attacking Motorola, it's just that Apple did not start the smartphone patent wars.
Kodak sued Apple in January 2010. Then Apple and HTC sued each other (Apple first) around April 2010. Things started escalating. Motorola sued Apple Oct. 8, 2010 and then Apple countersued a few weeks later. Check out this link for an infographic of the suits (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399098,00.asp).
Also, this article for the Motorola v. Apple suit: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-06/tech/29972735_1_motorola-patents-motorola-mobility-patent-infringement.
If anyone started the wars, it was Kodak. Apple has played their part in escalating the war but as far as Apple and Motorola are concerned, Motorola started that particular battle.
I meant to include in my previous reply that this particular patent win for Motorola was related to the October 2010 suit against Apple, precisely the one that started this particular battle (i.e., it was not Apple who started the war).
Apple has played their part in escalating the war but as Apple and Motorola are concerned, Motorola started that particular battle.
A little disingenuous are we? Apple sued HTC on March 2nd, 2010, starting the phone wars. And let's not forget that Steve Jobs stated he was going to go "theronuclear" to destroy Android.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I wasn't disingenuous at all. Kodak started the suits (Jan. 2010). Then, as I said, "Apple and HTC sued each other (Apple first)". I'm not defending Apple, I was just correcting the post above implying that Apple started all the suits - they didn't. Besides, Motorola (the company this story is about) went after Apple before Apple went after Motorola.
How can any random company be evil. It's only when a company becomes popular and regular people start using their stuff that they become evil and uncool.
I drank what? -- Socrates