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
Can they seek a ban on skinny jeans for men, too? Because those are really annoying. Oh, and thick-black-rimmed glasses.
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
No, but they fired the first shot, now they are going to get hit by everything the other teams can find.
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.
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
The shroud of the Dark Side has fallen. Begun, the Patent War has! (You can decide which side is which...)
What would your response be to the bully on the playground? Bend over?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Unless Google fights back, Apple will topple them. Pacifism is neat in theory, but it won't get you far in the business world. Google is guilty of nothing but self defense. If Apple stops trying to get Motorola phones banned and Google continues, THEN you can say they are guilty.
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.
Nokia fired first and Apple paid $600 million and something $20 a hand set on going
Depends how far you want to go back though.
Apple sued MS back in the eighties over look and feel and didn't win that.
Samsung sued LG last month, but it hardly got reported. There are no saints and angels here
http://www.devicemag.com/2012/09/11/samsung-sues-lg-for-alleged-oled-technology-theft/
Watch those corners
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.
I am tired of this constant meme although I am not a big fan of Google.
What Google is doing is perfectly right from a moral, legal and commercial perspective. Apple started suing Android makers first(though Motorola beat them to the punch by a few weeks with a lawsuit and request for a declaration that it didn't infringe certain Apple patents after talks broke down). If Apple gets an injunction against Motorola for their silly patents over multitouch etc., Motorola will have to either stop selling handsets or pay $30 per phone which will kill their phones. Why should they not retaliate so that they have a chance of a negotiated settlement if that happens?
Also, big companies like Apple must be taught a lesson that if you start litigating, you should expect no mercy from the companies you're suing exploiting the exact same legal loopholes. If that's not done, other companies(except NPEs) will not think twice before suing competitors. Why should Google unilaterally disarm again? Just because they're your favorite company is for once on the receiving end of the same shit it is flinging all over everyone else? Motorola is not suing Samsung, HTC etc. here, but Apple is. Go figure out why
This space for rent.
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/
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?
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.
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
I humbly submit a correction. All the FAT PIGS with huge moneybags for legal combat will tend to end at a standoff, but all the garage innovators will be shit out of luck. That is not a desirable outlook for the economy. Small and micro business is the lifeblood of an economy, and represents the hopes and dreams of the individual.
Except that Samsung thing is about actual technology theft. As in, literally stealing technology from Samsung (via ex-employees).
Apple, on the other hand, sued over rounded corners and icons in a grid. (You know, something my Samsung phone used in 2005. Long before the iPhone was released.)
This is, yet again, about actual technology, and not rounded corners. From the patent brief it sounds kind of silly (it sounds like they're talking about being logged into a chat with the same account via multiple clients), but it's still actual technology and not just "we arranged icons that contain rounded corners in a grid and so did they." It's hardly the same thing as Apple is doing.
I don't think anyone can out-evil Apple in this patent war. Apple hasn't invented a damned thing in the mobile space, but they've managed to patent the ridiculous since they're unable to compete on actual merit.
Samsung suing a competitor over allegedly poaching employees to steal trade secrets isn't quite the same thing.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "How do you like them apples?"
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"?
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.
Generally, the one who fires the first shot is the attacker and the one who fires second is the defender. Opinion holder-neutral definition.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
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
It has been solidly proven that Apple copied every else on the iPhone, stop repeating the same lies over and over and over again. This is not an Apple political forum. The patents were bullshit and everybody knows it, simply a straight up delaying tactic to keep competing products out of the market for as long as possible. You are not seeing the counter business tactic, cripple Apple's access to the market to accelerate 'competing', read that. 'competing' products access to the market. It's all about consumer choice not some bullshit Apple monopoly.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen