Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins US Import Ban On Motorola's Android Devices
jbrodkin writes "The U.S. International Trade Commission today ordered an import ban on Motorola Mobility Android products, agreeing with Microsoft that the devices infringe a Microsoft patent on 'generating meeting requests' from a mobile device. The import ban stems from a December ruling that the Motorola Atrix, Droid, and Xoom (among 18 total devices) infringed the patent, which Microsoft says is related to Exchange ActiveSync technology. Today, the ITC said in a 'final determination of violation' (PDF) that 'the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry for consumption of mobile devices, associated software and components thereof covered by ... United States Patent No. 6,370,566 and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, Motorola.' Motorola (which is being acquired by Google) was the last major Android device maker not to pay off Microsoft in a patent licensing deal. Microsoft has already responded to the decision, saying it hopes Motorola will now reconsider."
Yeah, if Microsoft were held to that particular standard they would have been out of business a long time ago.
Are you f'ing kidding me? The inmates really are running the asylum.
It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.
I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or not. I mean, remember, the other party to this suit is Microsoft.
And oh by the way Google doesn't own Motorola yet, and did not own Motorola when the devices in question were designed. But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your shilling or trolling or whatever it is that you're doing.
:(){
Yes, because we all know Microsoft invented the smartphone... wait, what?
Because we can all see how important Microsoft's smartphone inventions have been to the public, by the success of their phones. </sarcasm>
Once again - Generating Meeting Requests? That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Last time I looked(a few seconds ago), Motorola was being sued, not Google. Google was not even thinking about buying Motorola when those devices were made. So how is this Google hate even relevant?
Motorola did probably as much work on mobile tech in the early days as Nokia/Ericsson.
When it comes to that really difficult work Microsoft brings nothing to the table.
(Barnes and Noble didn't pay either and got bought off to drop the case).
It is not justice really. MS didn't pay hardly anything at all for most of its early stuff. (To Dec etc).
They shouldn't be able to pull this type of crap. (I don't hate MS anymore due to the fact they have a few quite products now and Gates is trying to do something good.) - (I quite like WP7 / Xbox 360 / Windows 7) - (Prior to Windows 7 I used either Solaris / Freebsd or Linux exclusively from 1999 onwards but it less easy to work with the abominations that are the modern DE's - When e17 is finally released I will probably go back to a *NIX - I am hoping it is before Windows 8 - Due to the work of Samsung it is getting very close to release - (Might as well use the best thing I can when the end of the world happens (Duke Nukem Forever is released) so this is the final thing).
The patents that are held by the Original pioneers - Nokia / Ericsson / Motorola should in a civilised society be worth far more than any junk software patents.
If you're currently using Exchange, perhaps now is the time to think about using a cloud service for email.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Here's the patent in question:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=L-ELAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,370,566
The present invention includes a mobile device which provides the user with the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself. The mobile device creates an object representative of the meeting request and assigns the object a global identification number which uniquely identifies the object to other devices which encounter the object. In addition, the mobile device in accordance with one aspect of the present invention provides a property in the object which is indicative of whether the meeting request has already been transmitted. In this way, other devices which encounter the meeting request are capable of identifying it as a unique meeting request, and of determining whether the meeting request has already been transmitted, in order to alleviate the problem of duplicate meeting request transmissions.
Is that really patentable? Assigning a unique ID to a meeting request to alleviate duplicate requests? How can that not be obvious to someone "skilled in the art"?
Is there any other solution that's more obvious? "Hey Joe, I keep getting duplicate meeting requests from your Palm Pilot. Oh noooooos! Hey, I know, I'll send each meeting request in a different color, then if you get two purple ones you'll know it's a dupe".
I would have thought a ruling by a judge would be needed to render something banned from import. So the power to regulate allows government agencies the ability to make profound and legally binding decisions without need for court systems or due process? I was not aware the ITC were experts on IP.
Wow, remove it and continue to ship.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
FTFA: claims 1, 2, 5, or 6 of the United States Patent No. 6,370,566
FTFP:
Claim 1: A mobile device.
Claim 2: Using a GUID.
Claim 5: And an address book.
Claim 6: Which talks to a remote server.
...
We're fucking doomed.
:(){
Roll that around in your brain for a second.
I really wonder why anyone would have one bit of respect for any intellectual property laws when they are being perverted in this way.
And they wonder why there is hostility toward our current economic system. Maybe it's because the people at the top of that system have completely broken the social contract.
Between this story and the notion that Facebook, a corporation that produces nothing, employs almost nobody, and whose users are not their customers is now worth >$100billion, and the fact that the young founder of Facebook is has greater net worth than the bottom 1/5th (!) of the entire US population, I think a picture of an economic system in its death throes starts to take shape. I can't see how it can last much longer, nor can I think of a reason why it should.
You are welcome on my lawn.
not think that patents are utterly useless and absurd?
The "invention" in question is laughable beyond belief.
The defendent and plaintiff are mutlinational corporations. Not a little guy that needs protecting.
How do the lawyers whose lifework is this nonsense make sense of their lives? At the end of the day, in your old age, what is the value of your life's work? Did you make anything? Did you help anyone? Or did you shuffle words around a disgusting nonsensical argument foisted on some other lawyers for the sake of absurd privations? What a completely and utterly useless and despicable existence.
Why do we as a society tolerate this useless sideshow? Oh, because of all the money involved, right.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, if Microsoft were held to that particular standard they would have been out of business a long time ago.
Microsoft has hardly been an innovator. I wonder who they bought the patent from.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
These things should not be patentable per se (which isn't to say that particularly clever implementations couldn't be patented):
1. Doing something on a wireless, portable, or handheld computer that is already done on a desktop (and not covered by a patent there.)
Joins my old favorite:
2. Anything that exists in the real world, a simulation is not per se patentable. Again, unless the real world thing is patented, and subject to the "clever implementation" issue.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Story - Microsoft Wins US Import Ban On Motorola's Android Devices - Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 18, @05:38PM .
First comment praising Microsoft - a properly worded, properly paragraphed, properly punctuated, comment, with a link with description - all of this taking up a 100 words not including punctuation - Posted by kdps (2642743) on Friday May 18, @05:38PM .
Google has a long history of trying to weasel out of agreements and payments just because they're 'Google'. In turn, Microsoft spends billions an year towards their R&D (Microsoft Research). They also work with the pioneer in the industry, Nokia, which has developed pretty much all the technology we base mobile phones today on. They deserve to be paid.
Not only do I see victory for justice, but a long term crackdown on Google's illicit business practices. It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.
Justifiably, you were marked for the troll that you are. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist (US vs Microsoft), a stealer of IP and code (Stacker, i4i), a saboteur of companies (Wordperfect/Novell) and a financial backer to SCO. They're also anti-open standards as evidenced by the people they tried to pay off to try and ratify their failed document format standard. As for their R&D - all I see from their labs are useless kinect experiments that have no practical or commercial value.
Generating meeting requests? Seriously, how the fuck is that an innovation that someone skilled in the art would not be able to come up with? It's time the patent office was held responsible for enabling patent trolling by lowering the bar to the ground. How about a system where any patent that ends up being overturned requires the patent office to pay the associated legal fees? You'd need a 3rd party to conduct the reexaminations to avoid conflict of interest, but it might do something to stem the tide of handing out junk patents like penny candy.
That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!
Use it while you still can. Next in line, Google and Apple dusting off some of their patents and banning each others phones, including the MS one.
Getting around the bans will be possible: except the smart phones won't be that smart anymore, each one will need to eliminate the "smartness" covered by the patents of the others.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Let's look at what Microsoft won and lost here.
Eight of the nine patents in suit are rendered useless. As soon as the last one is worked around, nine of nine. Everybody will work now to avoid these litigious patents. Microsoft's licensing strategy is to not reveal the patents at all because they can be worked around.
They don't get the $15 per device license fees, in perpetuity, they wanted.
Moto has to pay $0.33 per device, and only on the few devices found to infringe, and might actually get that money back if they bother to try. But regardless they save $14.67 per device - and that's just starting now. They don't pay any back money for prior devices.
Moto and Google have probably already worked around this patent and the cure is in testing. Once it's applied the net cost to Moto goes back to zero until the next time.
By successfully suing Moto for using Microsoft's patented Exchange API, they've recommitted to a course of prevention of interopability in a core Office product some had claimed was behind them. Way to go! We get to bring this up every time someone tries to say things have changed, or you should use some Microsoft technology and it will be OK (Mono, C#, and so on).
They don't get to cross-license Moto patents, ever. Moto has a LOT of patents.
Moto gets to be bitter and sue them back over every single thing they can, like H.264 patents, wireless patents and so on. Microsoft has to drop the DVD codecs from Windows 8, for example.
Everybody else who's paying Microsoft for Android gets to see that it is more economical to fight than to pay. Moto gets a $15 per device cost advantage on their Android devices, the better to compete with.
In return Microsoft may have earned the princely sum of One MILLION dollars, less lawyer expenses. (Based on 3 million devices imported before the issue is sorted out.)
Way to go guys! That's how you win in the digital age. Keep doing stuff like this and you'll earn your just reward.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
have you even heard of Microsoft Research?
Yes.
Here's a list of their output. http://www.quora.com/Microsoft-Research/What-products-have-come-out-of-Microsoft-Research
Perhaps you'd like to select a few highlights of genuine innovation for us to discuss here?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
This is so on topic. Whoever modded this offtopic has to be astrosurfing..
It is very insightful, that the grandparent is the first posting , yet it is so detailed...
That's not entirely a fair statement. Most companies are founded by people with knowledge or skills specific to the companies core product so generally speaking the first outside person they hire is going to be someone who has skills they don't have, a lot of times that's going to be someone in admin as opposed to a lawyer, but I'd be seriously surprised to find many software companies whose first employee was a developer.
Or you know, just stop selling smart phones in the US and concentrate on the rest of the world instead, where software patents aren't an issue...
I know. I got modded off-topic for mentioning that this is kdps first and only post. I didn't even look at the timestamps.
:(){
I'm sorry but they actually do have some good stuff. Last month we studied one of their research about Poisson Image Editing, which was awesome to say the least.
So, we're saying kdps is a shill account being operated by the /. 'editors' to provoke and promote 'discussion' and a 'debate'; that we're being manipulated and incited in order to increase pageviews and comments?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
It doesn't work like that, Google got a ban in place against Microsoft products in Germany but a US court ordered Motorola not to enforce the German ban even though frankly it had fuck all to do with the US court as it as a German issue. Here's hoping a German court orders Microsoft not to enforce the Motorola ban and see how American sfeel about German courts enforcing their power on US soil, doubt it'll happen though.
Basically whatever Microsoft wants Microsoft gets. People think Ballmer has achieved nothing since Gates left, it's not true, from OpenXML to various nonsencial court rulings favourable to Microsoft, to various investigations of Google when Microsoft/Facebook are guilty of the same things on the same/larger scale - Ballmer has achieved something, he's made Microsoft arguably the best tech lobbyist in the world, the problem is, Microsoft is the company we probably least want to be the best tech lobbyist in the world. Microsoft learnt well from the antitrust litigation how to avoid the wrath of politicians and courts and how to use them against your competition.
Apple seems to be pretty decent on the lobbying front, but Google has been too naive over it, hence their haste and will to buy Motorola- they were caught with their pants down putting too much faith into other companies playing fair and now they have a mad rush to catch up on the lobbying/patent/general dick business front so don't count on them managing to get their way. It's a sad illustration of the current state of the US tech industry, innovation is no longer relevant, it's all about how you play the politicians and the courts and in that scenario, Microsoft is king.