Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Seeks Ban On Macs, iPads, and iPhones
bonch writes "Google-owned Motorola is asking the International Trade Commission to ban every Apple device that uses iMessage, based on a patent issued in 2006 for 'a system for providing continuity between messaging clients.' Motorola also claims that banning Macs and iPhones won't have an impact on U.S. consumers. They say, 'With so many participants in the highly competitive Wireless communication, portable music, and computer market, it is unlikely that consumers would experience much of an impact if the requested exclusion orders were obtained.' The ITC has yet to make a decision."
Motorola can lock them out of a big part of the cable market if they really wanted to may say makeing it so apple can't use a Motorola cable card or have it work in a Motorola system.
It'll never happen, But it's a way of getting patent fees out of Apple (unless they refuse, in which case better hope the Texas courts have a gap).
Stop this bullshit and direct your lawyers to lobby to change the laws on software patents instead. Don't you think your money would be better spent on innovation?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Lets ban everything! I seriously hope this will pass.
Good to see Apple getting patent trolled. Sorry to all of the Apple fans out there but I hate today's Apple more than I hated '90s Microsoft.
Can they seek a ban on skinny jeans for men, too? Because those are really annoying. Oh, and thick-black-rimmed glasses.
Motorola: "...And nothing of value would be lost."
HAHAHHA.
That's a great retort to Apples actions. IT's what Apple has asked for in theitr lawsuit(to shut down everyone else), and as a side note, I suspect this would change patent law.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Companies like Apple feel like the only way to maintain is to stifle the competition not to keep innovating.
And yet now we find it is Google doing so, not Apple.
Both are equally guilty of bullshit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
in each market. But sure, it won't impact US consumers.
the whole patent system is going to come crashing down. The way these companies are going, it will not take much longer before people start realizing the current system is no longer viable. Maybe a decade or so, but not much more.
... and this bit of legal trolling both have the same chance of success. Of course it does get press which is hard for Motorola to get these days.
Best god damn soap opera going...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Karma is a bitch.... isn't it Apple?
How you like a taste of your own medicine?
To stop others being evil.
Patents are BS but Apple needs to be taught a lesson.
I'm sure Google would rather there were no patents bt when Apple is trying all it can to get Android devices banned, I want Google to succeed.
article submitter's name sounds familiar... can't quite place my finger on it though.
Patents are idiotic. The premise is that the protection provides inventors with time to market and be rewarded for their work on the invention. Why companies with billions in revenue every year need such protection is certainly a valid question.
USPTO fail.....
Please Mr. Obama, when you are re-elected, please make all software patents invalid because they clearly don't work.
-- Cheers!
No, they can't. The patents in question with cable are FRAND, so at most, Apple might be forced to pay a small tithe.
I'm banning everyone else from using their arms...at all. I've been using mine WELL before anyone else.
obvious redundancy is obvious
Google is doing all of the following:
1) Lobbying against the existing software patent regime,
2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit, and
3) Using its existing patent portfolio against Apple so long as the existing patent regime is in place, and given that Apple started the patent war against Android.
Given the existing patent situation -- both the laws on the books and the way the federal courts apply them -- Google will be foolish not to aggressively use its patent portfolio against firms that are aggressively using their own portfolios against Google and Google partners, even while they are working to reshape the rules in a way which would eliminate or vastly reduce the opportunity for such warfare.
If this was "made public" today, why is there so many articles from August 20th, when it was submitted? This is total bullshit, posted by Ars, just to try and get publicity with the iPhone 5 release tomorrow.
And for the record, I am not an Apple apologist, and I own a Galaxy S3. But I mean, bullshit is bullshit.
Apple started this war. Eventually, Apple is going to get hurt.
Really, not just IMAP... the whole notion that you might see the same messages everywhere is blazingly obvious once you have the concept of networked computing in the first place.
but at the very least, IMAP should invalidate
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
How is this different? If the courts rule that iMessage does actually violate this patent... then wouldn't all of those devices you listed, in fact, violate it? Just as Apple was seeking injunctions against Samsung devices that they claimed infringed.
Perhaps Apple will see sense and start to realise that it didn't invent the smartphone. The ideal solution is for everyone to stop suing everyone else and for fair licensing of real patents and an end to patenting the bleeding obvious. But somehow I feel that isn't gonna happen..
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
I totally agree Google should fight back.
I just think it's bullshit to complain about Apple's abuse of patents because they seek to ban SOME devices from ONE manufacturer, while Google seeks to prevent the sale of EVERY Apple computer and iOS device.
If you're going to be mad about patent abuse be mad consistently, is all I ask.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... Apple is forced to distribute a software patch amending behavior of said offending software module.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
right?
Actually, they did; they fired at Android device manufacturers. The major ones were HTC and then Samsung. While with Apple the hardware and software pieces of the ecosystem are all in the same company, with Android the handset manufacturers and the mobile OS developer are separate companies (but they depend on each other with regard to the success of Android products).
Global software patent mutual annihilation. And here I thought we had a few decades before 2077....
Except iMessage does not work the way stated in the patent.
Abstract
A messaging communication system (10) includes a plurality of messaging clients (12). A first messaging client (14) establishes a first communication connection (16) operating using a plurality of client data (25). The first messaging client (14) transfers the plurality of client data (25) to a second messaging client (20). The second messaging client (20) establishes a second communication connection (22) operating using the plurality of client data (25).
iMessage's clients only send and receive data from Apple's servers, never to one another directly. Each client is completely unaware or concerned about there being any other clients.
Even if you believed the patent was valid, then banning Macs? Instead of telling them to delete Messages?
I think the Don't Be Evil is long gone, lost in parts from the Google Plus push, the cozying up to carriers where Apple dared to push back.
I go back to the first dispute settlement... Build a man a fire, they're warm for a night. Set a man on fire, they're warm for the rest of their life. which are you after, MotoTrolls?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Both sides arm their lawyers with axes, maces, and bows. Meet on the field of battle. HAVE AT THEE! Televised of course with the proceeds going to the "iPhones for Orphans" or "Andriods for Amputees". No armor allowed, only 3 piece suits.
To the winner goes the spoils!
Proportional response has been shown over and over not to work as a deterrent. Randomly-escalated crazy response does work as a deterrent: crazy is scary.
But of course, it's only really a victory if all apple devices are seized and shredded in front of their owners. Hey, a guy can hope.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Not to take away from anything you said, but Google also very secretly invested in Intellectual Ventures(yes that Intellectual Ventures that Slashdot hates, founded by Paul Allen), which unfortunately for them, came out in a court filing
http://gametimeip.com/2011/05/19/the-intellectual-ventures-investment-list-an-unwelcome-revelation/
I love how headlines describe it as Motorola taking this action. Motorola is owned by Google. Google is calling the shots. Sorry, but don't try to pretend that Motorola is operating without Google's approval, especially on legal actions such as this. This is a Google move so let's call it what it is - Google is seeing a ban on Apple products.
It's the way business is done, nowadays. It's nothing personal.
How is this different? If the courts rule that iMessage does actually violate this patent... then wouldn't all of those devices you listed, in fact, violate it?
Apple's "Patent" was actually a design patent, all about the whole look and feel. Apple only sued one company over it. And yet the Apple suit spawned countless discussions about the evils of software patents in general and Apple's use of them to destroy the whole market.
Well here you go. The Motorola patent is the classic "evil" software patent that is totally obvious, would seem to have a ton of prior art, and just generally be a bad patent. And yet the Apple Haters cannot help but herald the use of this stinker as the coming of salvation!
Come on, bad software patents are a huge industry problem, and that problem is not helped when technical users champion the destructive use of a bad one like this by ANY company.
Just for the record I didn't support Apple's lawsuit either, but at least it had a lot more merit than this...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, I know the situation is complicated, and I'm glad that (it sounds like) Google is doing something. The whole thing is just incredibly frustrating, and given that I want to start a business some day (possibly soon) and that the situation for a bit player is much grimmer if you happen to implement the wrong feature that's listed among the thousands of active patents in existence, I can't help but be a little angry about the whole thing. Were software patents not being granted, we could be years ahead in technological progress.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
50 bucks a share with a market-cap of 14.41 billion, vs 702.10 a share with a market cap of 658 billion. If I were Motorola I'd shut the fuck up right about now.
That's how you do it. You kill one of us, we kill 5 of yours. If you're gonna do a mob, er, patent war do it right!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Would you like your thermonuclear war with a side of apple pie Ala mode?
All Obama can do is encourage Congress to get off their lazy asses and pay attention.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
No, they can't. The patents in question with cable are FRAND, so at most, Apple might be forced to pay a small tithe.
Google has not hesitated to sue and try to get injunctions based on FRAND patents in the past, unlike Apple.
[citation needed]
And remember, that's Google we're looking for a citation on, not Motorola Mobility from times before Google bought them. Some of us DO have long-term memories longer than the last Apple product announcement and remember that Google has not owned Motorola Mobility for long at all, which is why we're confused and want clarification.
Motorola is saying, "Either Apple has such a stranglehold on consumer choice that to remove them is to remove the market, proving that they must be in an anti-competitive position OR removing them from the market wouldn't hurt the market because there are enough viable alternatives so don't judge this based on whether banning iDevices would harm consumers."
I think that's a beautiful argument and I can't wait to see how the court weasels out of the proposed dilemma.
Apple asked to stop shipment of specific Samsung devices they felt violated trade dress. Not all of them.
Motorola is seeking to block all Apple devices with iMessage. That means every computer, every phone, every iPad, every iPod touch.
How is it exactly you feel that this is revenge in equal measure or a "great retort"? It seems like some bullshit (from Apple) was met by Super Extreme Mega Bullshit (from Google... er Motorola).
That doesn't seem like a great retort. It seems petty.
I see, so now it's Google/Motorola's fault that Apple offers less choice to their consumers?
And these phones weren't impacted by the trade dress violations but Apple still sought a ban on them. Stop trying to make Apple look like a saint here, they were and are trying to get anything they could get banned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9517250/Apple-seeks-US-ban-on-Samsung-Note-and-Galaxy-S3.html
This space for rent.
Not to take away from anything you said, but Google also very secretly invested in Intellectual Ventures(yes that Intellectual Ventures that Slashdot hates, founded by Paul Allen), which unfortunately for them, came out in a court filing
You didn't link the original source. Unfortunately for you I found it.
For the most part, these tech companies appear to have invested in intellectual ventures as part of a licensing agreement. ... Google ...
I wouldn't call a licensing agreement "very secretly invested". There's a list of the real investors too.
Google is doing all of the following:
1) Lobbying against the existing software patent regime,
2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit, and
3) Using its existing patent portfolio against Apple so long as the existing patent regime is in place, and given that Apple started the patent war against Android.
I shot this at a thinly-veiled Apple fanboy earlier in the discussion, one who was trying to poison things by intentionally confusing the times Motorola sued everyone as being the actions of Google (long before Google bought them), so, to be fair and because I think we could all use links, I'll shoot this at you, too:
[citation needed]
Apple hasn't sued all Android device makers, nor has it sued Google. They are absolutely *not* trying to stop all Android devices. Apple sued one handset maker over specific products they felt were copying too closely (rather than just borrowing or being inspired-by.) People have speculated that it was mostly about warning off competitors from that sort of copying - not about damages or banning products, though those things indirectly serve the real purpose.
Don't kid yourself about Google... they are as guilty as can be of abusing the patent system. They lost all credible claims of "innocent party" in the patent wars the moment they bought Motorola and failed to put a stop to the patent abuse. You get sued? Sure, go ahead and countersue with everything you've got. If Google wants to grant broad patent protection to its Android partners go ahead and do that. But there is nothing open or good about what they are doing.
P.S. Apple is paying a per-handset fee to Nokia over patents. Apple and Microsoft have cross-license agreements. Apple isn't neither unique nor extraordinary in the patent lawsuit game. I'm not sure why they have to be held to a higher standard on everything... people don't claim they will stop buying Samsung phones because they sued LG, or how much they hate Nokia because they sued Apple (one of the first shots-across-the-bow actually).
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
How do you like them Apples?
No, they can't. The patents in question with cable are FRAND, so at most, Apple might be forced to pay a small tithe.
There is no compulsory patent licensing requirement in the US.
... Pacifism is neat in theory, but it won't get you far in the business world ...
Pacifism doesn't work anywhere unless the pacifists are fortunate enough to live near non-pacifists who will protect them.
In the 1700s (?) some pacific islanders emigrated to a new island and lost contact with the original island. In isolation the folks on the new island became pacifists. A few generations later contact was reestablished with the original island, whose people had remained warlike. Those from the original island conquered the new island and enslaved the pacifist despite the fact that they were being blood relatives only separated for a few generations.
It's like you pulling a 9mm pistol on me, then crying foul when I pull my Magnum on you. If you had just left me the fuck alone, man, none of this would have happened.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Perhaps to influence them? Probably pretty hard to change an evil company from the outside.
Motorola may be seeking to block it, but realistically, if they win, they absolute worst they will get will be Apple pushing an iOS update that gets rid of iMessage and points people to Facebook.
This especially in Europe where Apple has full carte blanche to do what they so choose. At worse, over there, Apple has seen at worst a stalemate or two, but never any actual defeats. On the other hand, the EU will scrutinize any move Google or Motorola make with an electron microscope looking for malfeasance in any way, shape, or form.
So what's ok for Google is not ok for Apple. Because Apple shot first. (Or in their eyes were infringed upon first)
Justify it all you want, but if it's bullshit one direction, it's bullshit the other direction.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Open source is a license and has nothing to do with patents.
It is NOT OK for an intruder to your home to beat you up.
Is this clear enough to you now?
The patent tries to turn something obvious into something non-obvious by starting with a flawed implementation and then trying to remove the flaw. Here's their obviously flawed approach: Various devices connect to a communication server. Each device gives the communication server the user identification of the user currently using the device. When the user starts using a different device, the first device must be disconnected and then the second device must be connected to the communication server. And doing that is apparently worth a patent.
However, it is obvious that it's not a device connecting to the communication server, but a user. And the user just temporarily uses some device, and tells the communication server which device that is, but can obviously at any point in time tell the communication server that they are now using a different device. Totally obvious.
This is becoming MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Maybe that's the point. Maybe Motorolla is trying to teach Apple how to play Tic-Tac-Toe. Number of players: 0
There is no MAD, Apple can easily sidestep the issue. Remove, or more likely rewrite, the offending iMessage app.
it would stop my iMessaging which is a bad thing (tm) to happen. Looks like its time for eye for an eye lawsuits.
-Xen
Yet they still do shit like this and file BS patents. From what it sounds like they're claiming in the patent, just about everything from Trillian onwards has done this so there's prior art. Then there is that anonymity patent.
Google is poised to rip open apple's shitter....
Or prior samsung phones for rounded corners.
Except, apparently, they do not.
So what's ok for Google is not ok for Apple. Because Apple shot first.
That is correct.
if it's bullshit one direction, it's bullshit the other direction.
That may be true in your prefered solution to the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but it is not the best solution for society. Society benefits most when all members apply some evolved form of tit-for-tat with forgiveness. Once Apple defected, the most prosocial response within the game is for Google to defect. This acts as a social corrective force against unprovoked defectors to inhibit defection for light or transient reasons. See more at: The Prisoner's Dilemma
Outside the game the most prosocial response is to work toward making the system more efficient; in this case, to see patent reform happen and reduce the profit of defection. Both sides should be heavily and publicly engaged in this part in appreciation for all that our society and its economic system does for them.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's not okay to take out a gun and shoot a random guy on the street just because his haircut reminds you of your own. It's perfectly okay for that guy, once you aim a gun at him, to take out a gun and shoot you. We call that "self-defense".
The problem is you think Apple 'defected'/shot first.
Apple thinks Google/Samsung 'defected'/shot first.
So who's actually right?
Doesn't fit so nicely now, does it?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Apple asked to stop shipment of specific Samsung devices they felt violated trade dress. Not all of them.
Motorola is seeking to block all Apple devices with iMessage. That means every computer, every phone, every iPad, every iPod touch.
So, again, they're asking to stop shipment of specific Apple devices - those that they feel violated their patents. That it happens to be all of them is Apple's problem, by your own logic.
So, yes, this is exactly the same kind of retort. It's certainly a lame patent, but it's no more lame than overscroll bounce.
Google is doing all of the following: ...
1) Lobbying against the existing software patent regime,
2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit, and
3)
Items 1 and 2 are very good news. You mention Bilski, which is a good reference (here's a link for others who are interested). Do you have any other citations of Google's efforts? I want to believe.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
What if that random guy who looks like you decides to take your job/wife/house/kids/$10B?
But you only see it as a 'similar haircut'. Apple sees it differently. Very differently.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The consumer is the ultimate loser in all these patent deals. All the costs for litigation and licensing deals are tacked on to the base cost of each unit. 100% to 200% markup still applies. In the end we all pay extra for each handset. Like most people have commented, patent reform is probably the best and only answer, but it will only happen when people care enough to make it happen.
They don't let you introduce your technology in to a standard like this unless you agree to make it available to everyone. Perhaps in the future, IEEE should require people to turn over their patents as a condition for inclusion in order to prevent this kind of nonsense.
The problem is you think Apple 'defected'/shot first.
Apple thinks Google/Samsung 'defected'/shot first.
So who's actually right?
Google and Samsung. The sequence of the court filings is pretty clear.
Doesn't fit so nicely now, does it?
Your question? No, it doesn't. This thread is about who initiated the regulatory monopoly court proceedings.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
That's your opinion. And it doesn't count.
The thread is about who was wronged first, not just court cases.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The sequence of the court filings is pretty clear.
As is the sequence of who copied from who.
Bully punches you in the face, is not the same thing as responding in kind. Trust me, bullies use people like you to cry "foul" when the shit they do to everyone else comes back to them in a bad way.
It is the "don't mess with me, I wont' mess with you. But, if you mess with me, I'm gonna fuck you up in ways you can't imagine. Peace"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What people don't want to realize, Apple innovated - used patents to stop copying, always uses patents for defensive purposes else: Result: Every mouth-breather calls Apple a patent troll (yet they sued over trade-dress)
Now Google ACTUALLY PATENT TROLL, using a software patent to attack a company, not because they've ripped them off, but because they have a broad patent about "continuity between message clients". What bullshit. This is patent trolling. Not: You copied every aspect, dimension, look, icon, color, packaging and look and feel of our devices. This is bullshit - and you know why they think they can get away with it? Because of the astroturfing which brainwashed you all into thinking Apple was being a patent troll like Microsoft funded SCO (oh how quick you all forget in the face of paid-for comments on reddit).
Look at the AC comment ridiculously 5 insightful:
"I believe the consensus is that Google acquired Motorola largely for its patents so it could counter-sue Apple and anybody else who has been aggressively suing Android products as a more or less defensive measure. If Google won't show that it'll fight back, Apple and anybody else who wants to will sue Android, or Android manufacturers, into oblivion."
What a load of fucking bollocks - the "consensus" is that Google is being defensive? Apple didn't sue on patents for patents sake, they stopped Samsung copying them outright.
So when Apple defends against Samsung copying them, they're a patent troll.
When Google uses a "messaging between devices" patent to try and stop all products - hey that isn't patent trolling - they're just stupid not to do it until they fix the patent system.
Idiots, all of you.
> But you only see it as a 'similar haircut'. Apple sees it differently. Very differently.
That's good, eh. So Apple's a paranoic who sees a similar haircut and sees it very differently - "that's the guy who wants to take my job/wife/house/kids/$10B!" - and snaps out the gun?
Ok, there is kind of - defensive patent use is when you have so many patents related to what the other guy does, they are too scared to sue you over the patents they have.
But once the shooting starts, the only defensive patent use is where you claim you hold a patent to what they are accusing you of doing. The way to defend yourself in a patent war is you try to show the other guys patents do not apply to you or are not valid in general.
No, what Google is doing is called "retaliation". And as I stated I'm not even saying it's wrong of them to do so. I *AM* saying Google is now just as evil as Apple ever was because Google is now using patents in an offensive manner, in attack - there is nothing about this move that defends against anything Apple is doing, it's pure retaliation.
Again, both sides are in the wrong in terms of patent abuse but you and others on Slashdot seem to be the ones with the reality distortion field blocking you from understanding it is in the case of Google.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except Apple wasn't "wronged". They patented obvious concepts, then sued companies that "violated" them. Note that these are the same companies that INVENTED MOBILE TELEPHONY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Apple is very clearly the aggressor here, and if you can't see that your bias is very obvious.
Proportional response has been shown over and over not to work as a deterrent. Randomly-escalated crazy response does work as a deterrent: crazy is scary.
Absolutely. Google and Motorola are just plain crazy. Thanks for telling everyone on Slashdot. BTW. I heard estimates that Google makes about $2bn from maps on iDevices. And Apple just released their own maps with iOS 6. Guess why they are doing that. Maybe that's the reason for Google's crazyness.
If someone violates a FRAND patent without paying royalties (even if they are fair and reasonable) then they should be sued.
... unless you agree to make it available to everyone for a fair, reasonable and non discriminatory price. If you don't pay, expect to be sued.
Is it nondiscriminatory if you charge a partner company a certain price (or nothing at all) and charge a competitor a higher price? A court is not likely to find such terms nondiscriminatory.
I clearly remember owning windows mobile phones that did everything the iThings supposedly innovated upon the world, long before there were iThings.
They kind of sucked in some ways, but they certainly could do everything the first gen iPhone did. Plus they had multitasking, third party applications, copy and paste, etc. You would think if Apple can sue over frivolous look and feel nonsense, MS would be able to find *something* in the fact that they did everything the iPhone could do long before the iPhone did it.
-Lod
Google is only guilty of trying to protect itself from a litigous predator.
If a guy tried to fight off a mugger, would you say they were equally guilty?
The iPhone was not the first smartphone. Not the first rectangular device either.
And you know it.
If some stold a real invention, maybe firewire, that would be one thing.
But that never happens. Apple sues over silly bullshit, like the shape of an icon. Then the Apple fans scream that Apple has to protect their valuable IP.
BTW: did you know that Apple spends way less on R&D than it's competitors? Apple only spends about 2% of it's earning on R&D. MS and Google spend more like 14%.
Apple products are selling like mad. Nobody is confusing Apple products with Samsung.
Apple has a choice, Apple choose to be a bunch of litigous bastards.
2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit.
I'm sorry. Have you read the Supreme Court's Bilski decision? Unfortunately, I had to. It didn't say anything useful about software patents. It hardly even said anything about method patents, which is what it was supposed to be about. It's amazing how nine very, very smart people couldn't agree on anything more useful than "If it's abstract (whatever that even means), it's not patentable subject matter." The patent office all but ignored Bilski and basically instructed examiners that it was business as usual. The Federal Circuit pays it lip service, because they have to, but we're basically back to "machine or transformation." And we still don't know if a general-purpose computer is enough to meet the "machine" prong. Complete waste of certiorari.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
there's a sleazy client
And Apple just released their own maps with iOS 6. Guess why they are doing that.
Because they have a history of copying shit.
Except the guy on the street wasn't random, he had a boss who sat in on meetings which created that haircut design in the first place. And once that haircut was a hit that boss decided to become a barber himself.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Then Litigate on Patent and IP Baloney.
'Nough said Dan'O.
We be out of here.
It would be cool if the ban is granted, but this is the same type of thing (Cr)apple has been doing. On the other hand, since (Cr)apple has been trying to destroy Android, this does kinda look like a self-defensive move.
Except they were already working on similar haircut, other board members knew about that and he voluntarily removed himself from meetings about this haircut.
Please, this "Schmidt totally took out Android from board meetings about iPhone" bullshit is old.
But did they? Putting random accusations on Slashdot doesn't make them fact. This isn't Wikipedia.
They don't let you introduce your technology in to a standard like this unless you agree to make it available to everyone. Perhaps in the future, IEEE should require people to turn over their patents as a condition for inclusion in order to prevent this kind of nonsense.
Dont worry,
There will be no FRAND for LTE or future protocols because Apple pissed in the FRAND well.
Apple have been continually avoiding paying FRAND fees. The F in FRAND stands for Fair, not Free. They've been asked to pay the same fees as every other manufacturer and seeing as they not only dont have the patents to make a cross licensing deal fair to other parties, they use those patents to sue competitors rather than make a deal.
I hope the ban goes through, Apple needs a good kick in the teeth before it realises that the patent war it started is a terrible idea.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms can’t change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee.
Some interpretations of "non-discriminatory" can include time-oriented licensing terms such as an "early bird" license offered by a licensor where terms of a RAND license are better for initial licensees or for licensees who sign a license within the first year of its availability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
Well - you cannot hold Google responsible for that.
At least they tried, and showed their intentions...
Apple started this bullshit and I personally hope that every holder of these bullshit patents strike against them.
It will be interesting if the U.S. legal authorities bend as much towards Motorola as they did for Apple!
Apple can have a patent for a rounded rectangle and get millions, yet usable REAL innovative methods are denied and Apple can again do what they like!
I must admit its good to see Google possibly getting tougher!
You know, even though I own an iPhone myself, let me say that I dislike what Apple is becoming as much as most people here do... ...
But
If this article is true, I do not accept Apple's past behaviour as a justification for Google's current behaviour. I judge Google on Google's behaviour.
There's a good reason for the old saying "two wrongs don't make a right".
Oh yeah, my obligatory "iTunes sucks dogs balls" to boot ;)
I got my nickname tsa long before the TSA existed so please refrain from making remarks about the TSA.
I think you mean us to refrain from making remarks about the other TSA?
You being "the" TSA ... or maybe you don't want us to make remarks (such as this one) about you ... or both ... or I've confused myself. I'll sit down now.
"Good news, everyone!"
2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit
You need to go back and re-read the Bilski decisions. The Federal Circuit came up with the machine or transformation test, and the Supreme Court reversed and said that that test is too narrow and that something not tied to a machine could be patentable, as long as it wasn't an abstract idea. In other words, if the Fed. Circ. was "blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions," they'd be rejecting valid patents, not allowing invalid ones.
No, its not. Pay attention.
Its about filing lawsuits based on software patents, which the post that started this subthread took to be wrong a priori, and criticized both Google and Apple for, suggesting that instead of pursuing that course of action they should be lobbying against software patents. Following that, it was suggested (by me) that there was a difference, in that Google was lobbying against the current software patent regime, and that its use of software patent lawsuits was retaliatory and defensive, with Apple having initiated the exchange.
After that, you've tried to shift the discussion to be about the perception of infringement making Apple feel justified, but in the context of software patents as an a priori wrong that's irrelevant, since whether or not Apple's legal privileges under such patents were infringed is not an issue since the existence of those privileges at all is the wrong that is being complained about.
I suggest that you go back one post at a time and review the thread leading up to this point, because it is you that's missed the point and tried to change the subject.
You can argue all you want that it's just about patent court casts. But it's actually about how and why they're used. And you want to narrow it so it's just about the court cases, not why they're used.
Doesn't change the fact that Apple felt wronged and used court cases to remedy that. Just like Google is doing now.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Let me take your wife/kids.
See if you don't snap out the gun.
But let me guess, that ain't happening for quite a few years.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
So who messed with who?
Samsung by copying Apple?
or
Apple for suing Samsung?
or
Google for suing Apple?
I think Apple took your advice, and ran with it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Whether it actually did so or not is irrelevant to the fact that Google is using it (among other cases) to criticize the approach the Federal Circuit has taken subsequently and to argue that the Federal Circuit is improperly applying patent law to allow improper patents to stand. That is, the point is that Google (along with others) are very strenuously making the case the Federal Circuit -- in cases where they are not a party -- that the Federal Circuit's current approach to patentability is to broad given both the text of the Patent Act and the precedent of the Supreme Court. This was offered as part of an illustration of Google's present opposition to the current status quo regarding software patents, not as an argument that the Federal Circuit is, in fact, incorrect or that Bilski does, in fact, limit patentability in a way that the Federal Circuits subsequent decisions conflict with.
That being said, in fact, the Supreme Court in Bilski -- in its characterization of the rule extracted from Flook (which is not a quote of a rule explicitly stated in Flook) which was part of its basis for ruling that the patent before it was invalid -- did state a rule that is important in the area of both business method and software patents, "limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components [does] not make the concept patentable". This rule, along with the Mayo test for determining if a claim is abstract, are the two pillars of the argument Google, et al., have made at the Federal Circuit.
Actually, we know that limiting the use of an otherwise-abstract idea to a general purpose computer (or any other particular technological environment) doesn't make it patentable, because Bilski (internally quoting Diehr characterizing Flook) states explicitly that "the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.'" (And, in case anyone missed it in Bilski and Diehr, this passage from Bilski is quoted in Mayo.)
....remember when we all thought Microsoft was the evil corporate overlord.
Funny how times have changed, but nothing has really changed.
The difference is that Apple wants to bend you over the barrel, smile at you while they're cornhole'ing your wallet, and then make you smile about it, because of the pretty and easy to use interface.
Who know anal rape could be this enjoyable..../facepalm
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Amen. If this patent nonsense had been in everyone's mind back when cars were being invented, only one manufacturer would have cars with steering wheels, others would have required a tiller handle or some such. And only one mfr would have flashing lights as turn signals, the rest perhaps a small lever with a red flag that would extend from the fender and wave, and your imagination can take it from there. The whole business with these patents is absurd, asinine and ridiculous.
All I can say is.. Huh????
Apple does not build LTE chips, they purchase them and then install them in their devices. Apple says that royalties are paid by the chip manufacturer (and they are) so it's not necessary for Apple to pay as well.
As for the claim that "every other manufacturer" pays, that is yet to be seen. Apple has begun the discovery process to determine what, if any, fees it's competitors are required to pay.
who fucking cares?
I mean, come on..
Nice smackdown, mon. Good job.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Please accept the "Holy crap, I wish I'd said that!" award of the day. Good job.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
You sure are quick to leap to the defense of Google and Motorola. I'm sure your explaination that Google makes good money off of iDevices is a perfect argument as for why they aren't trying to provide themselves with a reputation for being a hard target for patent trolls. Well, OK, I can't actually see that at all - what was the point you were making?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.