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."
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
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.
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
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
... 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?
I would say it's more of a way to get Apple to lay off suing Android device manufacturers for patent violation. If you have enough ammo in your patent war chest, no one's going to take pot shots at you. Certainly worked for IBM, anyways.
I don't know if this move is at least in a little part an attempt to get Apple to back off on suing Samsung (is that bit about an Apple device ban not effecting US consumers lifted from Apple v Samsung comments?), but it might do so anyways.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
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.
Exactly what I was thinking! I love it! Corporate version of MAD! On the time line of chest pounding this is the official point where those exponential graph lines start soaring directly upwards.
This is all great news, because this means the war will be over sooner than later! Reconstruction always has more opportunities and innovation anyway, so I for one am cheering this on!
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
Exactly. Once this is affirmed, we can begin step 2: slowly destroying patents and the systems that create them.
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....
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.
Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
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!
Christ, can't we just start shooting all the lawyers and get this over with? The whole thing is an increasingly mad dash to innovation armageddon. I think no patent system at all would be better than the absurdities of this.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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/
Lets see
apple strikes first winner = NONE
MS strikes first winner = NONE
Google strikes first winner = NONE
It's the way business is done, nowadays. It's nothing personal.
If by "don't play" you mean "don't get any patents," that will get you sued out of business.
If, instead, you mean "don't get into the business of making consumer electronics," then yeah, you're pretty much right.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
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
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can I just say, that may be the best SIG I've ever read on Slashdot?
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.
Wooosh!
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.
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.
Do you have ANY clue of what you're spouting here? Hard to believe you're that ignorant, I am starting to think you're not an Apple fan but a troll at this point.
Pray, tell us which of these are design patents? And why are they suing HTC? Also, I am ignoring all the tens of court cases they have filed with things like multitouch, slide to unlock etc. etc. Not to mention they won on multitouch and the scrolling patent in the Samsung case, how are they design patents? What are you smoking?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/
Patent #7,362,331: Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States
This is an interface patent granted in 2008 -- it's not specifically related to phones. According to the claims, it's a method of moving a GUI object along a path with a non-constant velocity for a period of time -- one of the claims specifically covers minimizing windows with a scaling effect like OS X, and two others describe a row of icons that rearranges itself when icons are added or removed, just like the iPhone's app dock.
Patent #7,479,949: Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics
We did this one at length after it was issued in January of last year -- check out our Palm discussion for more. The big one here is scroll behavior: starting a scroll in a single direction locks you in that direction, but starting it at an angle lets you pan around freely -- just like the Android browser.
Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image
This one's cute 'cause it's brand new -- seriously, it was just granted on February 2. It's almost exactly what it says on the tin: it covers unlocking a touchscreen device by moving an unlock image. It's broad enough for us to say that it covers virtually every unlock behavior we've seen on phones, not just the iPhone's slide-to-unlock implementation.
Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display
Yep, we covered this 2008 patent in our Palm piece too -- well remembered, friends. Jump back to that for the full details, but the executive summary is that it covers the iPhone's distinctive scroll-back-and-bounce behavior.
Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device
Granted in 1999, this patent is surprisingly broad -- it flatly covers managing power in a digital camera device to a power manager that sends state information to a processor controlling the camera.
Patent #7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices
This was issued in October of 2009, and it's really quite specific: it covers a phone with multitouch input, a proximity sensor, and an ambient light sensor, which allows input when the sensors indicate one condition and doesn't allow input in others. In simple terms? It's how the iPhone shuts off the touchscreen when you hold it to your ear, a scenario that's specifically called out in the claims.
Patent #5,848,105: GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality
The year was 1998, and times were lean in Cupertino. Steve Jobs had just returned to Apple, and although the company's fortunes were turning with the introduction of the iMac, it was clear that a true breakout was needed. "We have the answer!" cried William A. Garnder and Stephan V. Schell, two of the company's employees. "We'll develop an an apparatus
This space for rent.
Friendly advice, if you want to be able to retain your geek card, you'd better be able to recognize any major quote from Wargames.
How about a nice game of chess?
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?
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.
Don't strikes mean winning court cases?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And?
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.
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.
Were there any other major quotes? That's the only memorable line I got out of that movie (though it's been a while since I've watched it)
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
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.
Are you talking about Apple being invaded by copiers or Google being invaded by patent fights?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
It's understandable, but there's a big diff between design patents (which is a huge part of what Samsung got slammed for) and software patents.
(if it were a typical hardware patent, Apple would simply do what it has in the past - point to the chip makers and say that said chip makers already covered patent-maintenance, and that Motorola is double-dipping.)
Besides, if they were going to try that angle, wouldn't suing over a non-FRAND patent be a smarter move? Apple likely pays its legal team more than Google/Motorola will see from any compulsory licensing.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Mr. Liggett: Alright, Lightman. Maybe you could tell us who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.
David Lightman: Umm... Your wife?
Sammy actually got slammed more by software patents (pinch to zoom, double tap to zoom, overscroll bounce, slide to unlock) than by design patents in the most recent round.
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".
Joshua: Shall we play a game?
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
GP is suggesting that Google may be up to some PR shenanigans here. Any "dirty" work is left to their subsidiaries / partners so as not to besmirch the Google "Don't be Evil" corporate name.
Friendly advice, if you want to be able to retain your geek card, you'd better be able to recognize any major quote from Wargames.
What makes you think GP didn't realize the quote was from Wargames? Movie quotes are only clever though if they have some pertinence to the issue at hand, which in this case is MAD as applied to patent portfolios. In this game, there really is no winning move, which is his point.
Of course, this goes to show how ridiculous the original quote was, too. If by "don't play" they meant "don't stockpile nuclear weapons", the result would be the same as here: one country would cease to exist.
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.
Let's not be disingenuous.
The action against Samsung was about more than just rounded corners. In particular, it was about them trying to shamelessly ape the whole Apple brand and appearance instead of coming up with their own way.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Not really. Apple made the case that this was all a part of their trade dress, and their design patents are meant to protect their trade dress so they were a very integral part of the case. The way Samsung spins it, you'd think the case was all about rounded rectangles.
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
All things I've listed are functionality patents, not design patents. There's no way they can be a part of their trade dress. And this is the first time I've heard anyone say that they claimed to be.
Note that I didn't even mention rounded rectangles.
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.
Were there any other major quotes? That's the only memorable line I got out of that movie (though it's been a while since I've watched it)
Are you kidding me?!?
JOSHUA: How. ah-bout. a-nice. game. of chess?
DAVID: Maybe....later....now...let's....play....global....thermo...nuclear....war.
DAVID: Is...this...a...game...or...is...it...real...?
JOSHUA: What's the difference?
Dad: [painful crunch] ...This corn is raw!
Mom: I know! Isn't it wonderful? It's so crisp!
Dad: Of course it's crisp-- it's RAW!!
Falken: Path - follow path. Gate - opengate throughgate closegate. Last ferry leaves at 5:30 so run run run!
Falken: ...and Nature will start over, probably with the bees.
Falken: We're the lucky ones. We'll be spared the horror of survival.
Regular nerd to super-nerd: MR. POTATO HEAD!! MR. POTATO HEAD!!! BACK DOORS ARE NOT SECRETS!!!
And that's just off the cuff. With more time and a few hints I might be able to reconstruct 70% of the dialogue in the whole film. ;-)
Yes I know, intertubes winnar = real life luser. I'm fully aware... I mean, it's Slashdot, and I have a relatively low UID.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Thanks! I really should watch that movie again. I've apparently forgotten most of the good parts!
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
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
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.
Of course, this goes to show how ridiculous the original quote was, too. If by "don't play" they meant "don't stockpile nuclear weapons" ...
Erm, no, the game was Global Thermonuclear War. Only fools and psychopaths, or suicidals, play that game.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
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
The iPhone was not the first smartphone. Not the first rectangular device either.
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.
Christ, can't we just start shooting all the lawyers and get this over with?
I'm afraid not. See, lawyers are humans, so you're talking homocide. I sympathise with your frustration, but there actually are good/decent lawyers out there (NewYorkCountyLawyer, I'm lookin' at you).
Besides, the usual way to go about it is not shooting them. It's "... ten thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean."
I suggest just making popcorn and enjoying the show, or doing something that will fix US tort law. Chyaa, right.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
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.
if you want to be able to retain your geek card,
I'm a nerd. 'Geek' is a designer label they put on stuff sold in the Fashion Mall.
But did they? Putting random accusations on Slashdot doesn't make them fact. This isn't Wikipedia.
Christ, can't we just start shooting all the lawyers and get this over with? The whole thing is an increasingly mad dash to innovation armageddon. I think no patent system at all would be better than the absurdities of this.
Lawyers are the symptom, not the cause.
Shoot the MBA's who decide suing over patents is a good business model. And make sure you aim for the head even though they'll live for 9 days without it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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
Do yourself a favour and watch The Manhattan Project as well. :-)
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/
"Good news, everyone!"
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
Problem is that lawsuits move at a snail's pace compared to technology. All that is ever banned is models that are close to obsolete anyway, so it doesn't make a huge difference. They may get an injunction against the iphone5 about the time the iphone6 comes out, so even if the iphone6 has the exact same patent infringement happening it will require another legal round where the 6 gets banned when the 7 comes out.... and on, and on... the end result is that while billions of dollars are lost to the whole mess, the courts are tied up and unable to handle useful matters, and innovation is completely stifled when new entrants to the market are too scared to even bother... But the end consumer never notices so there is never the appropriate outrage among the general public that would be needed for any real patent reform.
Well that would at least help to counteract the patch that samsung was forced to release by apple removing the integration between local and web search features... Companies need to make it clear to Apple that their lawsuit spree is not consequence free.
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.)
Irrelevant. If it were Apple vs. Some Guy In His Garage Ltd. then you'd have something, but by the time you get in to the scale of company that you're talking about, the dollar figures just aren't relevant any more, you can only fit so many lawyers on to a case, and so much research work, etc. Once you exceed that, your extra money just doesn't help anymore. And it's hard to say that Google/Motorola aren't big enough to reach that limit.
And the only way to make people care is to make it affect them directly. Hence the request to ban devices. If people can't get the latest iDevice, they WILL notice, and I can't think of a faster way to get patent reform.
Unfortunately I also don't see the ban happening, at most Apple will be forced to issue some software patch removing the offending feature (similar to Samsung removing the local/web integration from their search feature) and the game will continue..
Cutting out the cancer is not wrong. It may be painful, but that doesn't make it wrong. You may note that they're going through the legal process, rather than hiring assassins to exterminate all Apple executives. They're doing the right thing in the right way.
....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.
Are you stupid enough to believe that if we all woke up tomorrow to find apple wiped off the face of the earth that this crap wouldn't continue on the exact same path? Really? I've got some real estate you might be interested in.
Only two things scare me, and one of them is nuclear war.
You lack imagination. If the initial blast gets you, your troubles are over before you have time to even think about it. A lingering death from radiation poisoning taking weeks for you to slowly waste away would be sheer hell.
I'll take a Mack truck in the back of the head any day over lots of other ways to go out.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
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
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/09/19/1940251/motorola-seeks-ban-on-macs-ipads-and-iphones#
GEE I thought MAD stood for Mothers Against Drunk drivers. Now it is Motorola Against Damage control
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
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.
Apple doesn't really have a patent on "pinch to zoom," there was prior art for that. They have a patent relating to continuing a multi-touch event (which includes a zoom event in it's example), but was not a part of this case. I can see how double-tap to zoom could be considered a functional patent, but it's not required to make a functional device. Really, this case blurs the line between what's functional and what's decorative. With Apple clearly spinning it as decorative and Samsung not disagreeing, the court apparently saw no reason to disagree either.
In fact, if you look at it that way, the result was a foregone conclusion. Samsung was clearly trying to pursue a design that mimicked the iPhone, they even turned over internal documents indicating that during the discovery process. Samsung was essentially trying to convince the jury that design shouldn't be patentable (hence their rounded rectangle argument). The jury apparently did feel trade dress should be protected, and even it they hadn't they may well have found it wasn't their place to overturn hundreds of years of legal precedent.
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
Of course it would, because people like you are unwilling to do anything about it.
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.