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."
Karma is a bitch.... isn't it Apple?
How you like a taste of your own medicine?
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.
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
What would your response be to the bully on the playground? Bend over?
If the bully were Apple, many Apple fans like SuperKendall wouldn't think twice before bending over and taking it without even as much as asking for lube.
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/
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.
I can certainly blame the player if they choose to play.
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.