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.
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
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
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!
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
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
Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
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
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.
I was expecting more knowledge and intelligence from a prolific Apple fan follower and poster. Maybe I was wrong.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-20-iphone-patents/
http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-sues-htc-again-iphone-maker-scared-android-smartphone-makers-210931
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-motorola-over-xoom-design-report-says/
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/06/24/013245/apple-sues-htc-again-over-patents
Have you been sleeping under a rock or does facts not favorable to Apple just don't penetrate the thick RDF?
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
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.
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.
I guess that's one of the risks if your company chooses to focus on creating and pushing absolutely identical clones of one product, instead of providing a range of devices with different options and hardware from competing manufacturers...it's an all the eggs = one basket kinda t'ing. If your device violates a patent...all your devices are likely to violate the same patent in the same way.
I don't understand your argument. Samsung has lots of products, not just absolutely identical clones of the iPhone and iPad.
Umm...sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm saying that Apple has a product line with absolutely no diversity allowed wherever possible, so naturally if their product violates one patent, the rest of their products are very likely to violate it as well. That's why Google can cry patent infringement across the entirety of the Appleverse, while Apple could only pick on a single product line from a particular manufacturer (more or less).
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
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 Be Evil never existed.
Remember Google history. Google needed a CEO, and who did they want? Steve Jobs. Yes, Jobs. Naturally, though, Jobs was involved heavily with Apple and decided it wouldn't be possible.
Instead, what Jobs did was take the Google founders under his wing and teach them about how to be leaders. (Of course, when Google released Android, Jobs felt backstabbed (again - first time was Gates and Windows), and wanted to wage war.).
Of course, given that Google's leadership was governed by Jobs through proxy, you can bet that a lot of Jobs' lessons would've been heeded. You can bet in 5 years, Google would be like Apple today. Sure they have Android, but while it's an open playground, it'll be one constantly spying on you.
Ok, I really meant to say successfully banned a few devices from one maker. None of those other things went anywhere.
Wait, so did Googorola successfully ban all Macs, iPhones and iPads according to the RTFA which is why you are getting so riled up about Google?
Not to mention that many of those Apple requests for injunctions are still pending and awaiting trials/judgements.
But that's being pedantic; fine, I'll say Apple is is attempting to ban every Android device form shipping just to make things easy.
So then, that puts them on parity with Google's level of evil.
Now can we complain about BOTH companies equally please an the patent law itself that enables this?
Sorry, no. Before Apple started suing the Android OEMs, there was a detente among them. Apple shot first, breaking the de facto peace between themselves and HTC/Samsung/Motorola.
If Microsoft sued Apple tomorrow over a kernel patent over iOS/OS X and Apple sued them back with 100 patents to retaliate because they think they might lose, you think they BOTH MS and Apple deserve equal blame because "the patent law itself enables this"?
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.
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.
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.
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
... 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
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
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 are absolutely *not* trying to stop all Android devices.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but ol' Steve really wanted to.
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong."
Seems to me Apple basically want to own the "x" on a touch screen device space, and would greatly prefer if other phone makers stuck to dumbphones, permanently.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.