Slashdot Mirror


Google Seeks US Ban On iPhones, iPads, Macs

theodp writes "Following up on an announcement that it would rid itself of 4,000 employees world-wide and renege on a deal with the State of Illinois, Google's Motorola Mobility unit said it has filed a new patent-infringement case against Apple, which seeks a ban on U.S. imports of devices including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers. 'Apple's unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers' innovations,' Motorola Mobility said in an e-mailed statement."

23 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not ban the two companies from doing business in the US until they iron out a deal?

    1. Re:Well... by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't go that far, but Google's personality is one where it doesn't agressively go out to destroy the other party. I forget the exact words Steve Jobs used when talking about destroying Android, but if Google were equal with Apple in that respect, they would have done this LONG ago. Most often, Google is the party being sued, not the party filing suit.

      I do not see Google as white hat and Apple as black. I see Google as a marketng company which depends on its own image being briight and shiny. Apple is a product making company and depends on its prodicts image as being bright and shiny. Their motives are quite different.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nothing in the linked article supports the claim in the summary that they "renege[d] on a deal with the State of Illinois". All the article says is that their workforce will drop below 2500 and that consequently they will no longer be eligible for tax breaks. Nowhere does it suggest that they made any deal requiring them to retain a workforce above that level. If there is a link supporting the claim that they reneged on a deal in this matter then can someone provide it?

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No. If I punch you in the face = Evil

      You punch me back = Self defense.

      George Bush punches you in the face = Preemptive strike

    4. Re:Well... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's simpler than that. Apple was Steve Jobs and he loved suing the competition.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Well... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dick Cheney doesn't play this pussy face punching game...

      Birdshot to the face! BOOM!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Well... by durrr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meanwhile, the patent lawsuit shitstorm have been upgraded to hurricane status.

    7. Re:Well... by jbolden · · Score: 5, Informative

      No there are two issues.

      One is a bunch of look and feel patents and functionality patents and mostly Apple is doing the suing.

      The other are a bunch of older patents about communication. And there Apple is supposed to be paying 2.5% if it is not under a co-licensing but thinks that's too high because their phones aren't $40... and in that one I have a tough time seeing how Apple is going to win.

      Apple picked a fist fight. Motorola/Google had a knife and told Apple to back off. Apple instead charged and now got stabbed

    8. Re:Well... by BadgerRush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In your argument you anthropomorphize a company (Google) and that is a very misleading and dangerous thing to do. Companies are not persons, they don't have long lasting morals and personality guiding its actions. A company's actions are result of an emergent behaviour arising from (and infinitely more complex then) its leadership decisions. Because the emergence is so complex, the “personality” of a company can change inexplicably and it is even possible for a company with good people to do evil things.

      TL;DR: companies are not people and their past good actions are not evidence of future good actions.

    9. Re:Well... by Truedat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup, it's called the morality distortion field. Slashdot seems particularly susceptible.

    10. Re:Well... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Retaliating is defensive.

    11. Re:Well... by BronsCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is only temporary. If Google wins the ban they're seeking, it will resolve itself in a matter of weeks.

      You see, the patent shitstorm in the phone and tablet arena is all centered around Apple. When apple sues someone, everyone else jumps in, knowing that the company's legal team will be busy with Apple, giving them a better chance of winning; plus, if the majority of suits are successful, there's a possibility of one less competitor.

      Of course, when you're being sued for infringing on someone else's obvious and likely invalid patents, you fire back with counter-suits for the obvious and likely invalid patents of yours that they are likely violating. So, every time Apple files suit against someone, all their other competitors jump in; but then, the party being sued doubles the number of lawsuits by counter-suing everyone.

      Of course, had Apple never sued, initially, the smaller competitors wouldn't have had the balls to and, as soon as Apple is done, the smaller competitors will be willing to license, or cross-license, their patents, and all of those suits and counter-suits between everyone else will be done.

      I hope Google wins this one. Not because I wish any harm to Apple, but because Apple will be forced to respond by licensing and, where appropriate, cross-licensing their patents where the currently refuse to do so. They'll be forced, at that point, to quit suing everyone, which will close the door to lawsuits from smaller companies who see an opportunity to strike while the enemy is distracted; those companies would then license and cross-license.

      In short, everyone will stop suing everyone, in the mobile phone and table arena at least, when Apple stops suing everyone. Of course, if someone ever has a valid claim, I'm sure it will still be raised, but the shitstorm will subside when Apple is forced to quit stirring it up.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    12. Re:Well... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, but two Wrights make an airplane!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    13. Re:Well... by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope Google wins this one. Not because I wish any harm to Apple, but because Apple will be forced to respond by licensing and, where appropriate, cross-licensing their patents where the currently refuse to do so.

      I don't like this line of thought. This massive cross-licensing nonsense is what keeps the little guys and potential entrepreneurs from entering markets. Why is the solution to obvious and likely invalid patents to create some mega-consortium of tech giants who all have a patent cross-licence agreement? So unless a company has a huge battlechest of obvious and likely invalid patents they can't even consider competing with these guys. Sounds kind of like an oligarchy to me.

      Personally, I see one benefit of Google winning this case: It might wake people up to the fact that these ridiculous patent spats affect them as consumers as well. It might bring some bureaucrats to the realization that rubber-stamping any patent a tech giant submits is a bad idea. Most importantly, hopefully it becomes a political issue that politicians have to take action on.

      We should be rooting for the outcome that will most likely lead to patent reform. That's probably Google/Motorola, as a ban on Apple products would certainly get a bunch of yuppies' panties in a bunch. But if all their victory would lead to is a cross-license agreement (which it probably would) then I find it hard to care one way or the other. I don't care who sues who - what I have a problem with is the legal system that allows them to do it. It doesn't matter if Company X has too much integrity to file frivolous lawsuits when Companies Y and Z will. Companies Y and Z will just end up more successful. Integrity is something that must be forced upon a corporation by way of the rule of law (can't wait for the Randians to read that one).

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    14. Re:Well... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Funny

      When did Apple ever sue Google?

      Apple is currently fighting against (and started the fight) Motorola Mobility. THIS suit is Motorola Mobility fighting back. That ignores all the OTHER anti Android suits by Apple against Google customers. So you can take it as a retaliation for the suit against Motorola Mobility or in defense of their customers either way it is defensive not aggressive.

      When you start a fight it is your fault if the other side tries to rip your nuts off and shove them down your throat.

  2. Wow. OH WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this were to succeed, just imagine the economic impact.

    First, the Web 2.0 would collapse. Without Apple devices to participate in all sorts of useless "social media", the entire hipster culture would implode. This means Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, reddit and all of the other big names would be no more. (As a side-effect, there'd also be no further need for Ruby on Rails "developers" and NoSQL "experts" to build these kind of sites.)

    If these hipsters aren't wasting time on web sites like those, or on trying to build the "next big startup", then they won't need to be sitting in Starbucks all day. Starbucks and its ilk could very well become the next victims!

    Now you've got roving bands of hipsters on the loose, suffering severe withdrawal symptoms due to not having Apple devices in their possession, AND not having had any choco-latte-mochachinos lately. In uncontrolled outbursts, they lash out at their trust fund administrators. Stricken with fear after dealing with numerous crazed hipsters, these administrators flee their jobs, causing the financial sector to collapse into ruin.

    The financial sector collapse causes economic ruin across the nation. There is no employment, imports eventually trail off, and people starve to death. Entire communities disappear, and their infrastructure crumbles. The country is destroyed.

    1. Re:Wow. OH WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      did you go to the *AA school of economics? ;)

      This is on par with the MPAAs report that claimed piracy harmed US corn farmers by way of reduced popcorn sales in cinemas.

  3. Re:How can this be ? by Targon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is all in response to Apple trying to kill the Android phone market by preventing their devices from being imported, and nothing more. Apple started all this lawsuit garbage, and deserves to be slapped down hard for the MANY cases of THEIR copying of ideas from others.

  4. It can be like this: by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Appleâ(TM)s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. Iâ(TM)m going to destroy Android, because itâ(TM)s a stolen product. Iâ(TM)m willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

    "I don't want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, thatâ(TM)s all I want."
    - Steve Jobs

    Looks like Google's taken them up on the offer for war since the new Dictator is carrying out the same stupid plan. Hopefully this mutually assured destruction will get Apple to pull it's head out of it's ass. You don't stay rich giving all your money to lawyers. Would you simply acquiescing to the asshole's irrational demands? I wouldn't either.

  5. Re:In other news Apple is banning Android devices by Snowhare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yep. This is Google explaining to Apple that they aren't the only one with patents. The monster patent portfolios of all the big players have exist in part to deter other large players from launching patent wars. It is a form of 'Mutually Assured Destruction'. Apple went nuclear starting a couple of years ago. Google (and other large players) are now launching their counter-strikes to demonstrate to Apple why it is a bad idea.

    If Apple has any sense (more likely now that Steve Jobs is gone) they will begin quietly trying to wind down the patent wars.

  6. Re:How can this be ? by Holmwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their purchase of Motorola was indeed primarily for this. They needed to be able to defend Android, and Google itself didn't have sufficient mobile patents to have a decent chance at prevailing in a court against Apple. Google + Moto on the other hand, very much the reverse.

    Google's choices were - buy Nokia, RIM, Motorola, or the Nortel patents. Of that lot, Motorola made by far the most strategic sense since they had an enormous trove of on point patents, were affordable, and were already an Android partner. At the time, their losing the Nortel patent auction looked bad, but when they snapped up Motorola shortly thereafter, it all made sense.

    Would they have been better off winning Nortel patents for (say) $5bn than spending $13.5+ for Motorola? [I'm counting anticipated restructuring costs in with the purchase price] Maybe. But it's entirely possible that Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. would have pushed the bidding on Nortel patents well above $5bn. Also, a lot of the Nortel patents would have been neither applicable nor remotely useful to Google. For a patent defense, Motorola is a much better fit.

    Does it suck that companies have to spend billions in this fashion to create a legal defense? Yes. If you're an ardent Apple fan, it sucks that Google gets to attack Apple just because they bought a bunch of patents; if you're an ardent Google fan, it sucks that Apple is attacking Android manufacturers in the first place. For the rest of us, firing engineers and hiring lawyers does not seem a winning plan for engineers or the economy-at-large. Nice for lawyers though.

  7. Where do you get "renege" from? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article says that if they retain 2500 then they get the tax breaks: if they don't, they don't. They've clearly decided that the extra payroll isn't worth the breaks so they have chosen to give them up. That's the deal. Nothing is being "reneged" on. They are complying with the agreement.

    IMHO such deals should not exist, but that's a seperate issue.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  8. Re:How can this be ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dunno, I think it is Apple who will ultimately regret their strategy.

    Even if you think Apple have brought a lot to the mobile phone space you have to acknowledge they are depending on an awful lot of other peoples IP. Pre Apple (and still between other companies) IP issues in the mobile space seem to have been handled fairly amicably. Companies competed with their products, not lawsuits. Then Apple walks in, uses everybody else's IP but is incredibly unfriendly with their own.

    I think this is a mistake for two reasons.

    1) Outside identified FRAND patents all these other companies with years of mobile experience will inevitably have patents on things Apple does in iPhones and IPads.
    2) Apple grows it's business by entering and disrupting existing markets. The existing mobile phone companies were perhaps asleep at the wheel in allowing Apple to get a foot in the door. They just viewed them as another competitor and thought they'd continue to do business the old way. No other market will make that mistake now. If Apple try to expand into a new market now then existing players will surely note their litigious nature and preemptively use whatever legal means are available to stop them getting a foot in the door.

    Apple went "nuclear" without realizing what that means. You can use them if no one else also has nuclear capability or you can sit on them as a deterrent if other people do. By deploying their weapons Apple has ensured that every other company will feel it necessary to use theirs too (and in future, perhaps first).