Motorola wins German patent case against Apple, can ban sales of iPhone, iPad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damon Bennet said:
people should buy windows phones anyway.
Click to expand...

image.php
 
I seriously doubt the Germans would ban apple products. that's like trying to deny a junkie his black
gold.
 
Divvy said:
This is like the fourth or fifth consecutive court case Apple has lost in these patent wars lately. I wonder what's going on?
Click to expand...

What was destined to happen when this shit kicked off. To much of a scattershot IMO. Its not that they dont have some reason for some of their suits, its just that, well, probably not the best idea to just chuck your offense out on EVERY fucking one simultaneously. Ive been saying for a looooong time that this wouldnt end well for them. Lots of people still have their heads in the clouds though, still believing that Apple cannot be touched, and that nothing negative for them will result from all of this.

Its probably about time you take your head out of the sand, this shit is bad. Not end of the world bad, but its bad. They overcame the FRAND issues to win this also. The damages they could have to pay for past infringement going back to the first iPhone could be massive. And that would be on top of paying for/cross licensing for the licensing in the future.

Divvy said:
It's not that they haven't lost anything, it's just that these recent cases removed a lot of the gains Apple made in this patent war.

For instance last month, Australia's court removed the injuction placed on Samsung, and then today, promptly denied Apple an appeal and ordered them to pay Samsung's legal fees.
Click to expand...

Indeed, in that case Im wondering is Apple ends up sued for the time the device was off store shelves.

acheron_xl said:
Yeah, at worst this just means that Apple is going to drop a cash bomb on Moto and/or trade patent licenses.
Click to expand...

Trading patent licenses would actually be a massive change man. That would be about as far from 'staying the same' as possible.
 
Motorola should go thermonuclear on them!!! Destroy the me too copycats!!! /sarcasm.

This sucks for consumers, is better for us if they compete in the open market for consumers cash, it sucks that we can't have that.
 
Cipherr said:
Trading patent licenses would actually be a massive change man. That would be about as far from 'staying the same' as possible.
Click to expand...

I meant the same from the consumer point of view. They'll find a way to keep their products on the market if their backs are against the wall.
 
The Apple hate is strong in this thread. I guess being a company that makes products that people actually WANT to buy rubs some the wrong way.
 
Paradoxal_Utopia said:
The Apple hate is strong in this thread. I guess being a company that makes products that people actually WANT to buy rubs some the wrong way.
Click to expand...

The Apple hate in patent threads is because Apple started the patent war by trying to ban phones using multitouch, then trying to ban phones using swipe to unlock, then successfully banning Samsung phones in several markets.
 
That's crazy. Google is an evil mofo confirmed for the inth time

Shiggy said:
Is anyone actually using those? All I know either have an iPhone or an Android device (or still an old Nokia). Might change with the new Nokia phones though.
Click to expand...
It's alrght, wait a year before the store fills up before you get a device
 
Crazymoogle said:
lol no

Sorry guys, this is just lawsuit #300/2000 or whatever. Expect to hear warring stories about Apple vs. Samsung vs. Google vs. Microsoft vs. HTC vs. whomever to continue for years. The battle wasn't even started by these guys; they're just legally forced to continue to do so.

Until we see some reform in intellectual property law this stuff will probably get worse with every product released.
Click to expand...

Yup...

I'm not sure reform is going to stop this. The fact of the matter is, there are rules out there to protect inventors and companies, you CAN take advantage of these laws, and Apple has done just that. Really, Apple's over-aggressiveness has cause blowback. Other companies are trying to get them first before they get screwed.

Hate the PLAYER, not the GAME.
 
Apple actually recommended Samsung follow these guidelines for there tablets going forward


Smartphone Design Tips

Front surface that isn’t black.
Overall shape that isn’t rectangular, or doesn’t have rounded corners.
Display screens that aren’t centered on the front face and have substantial lateral borders.
Non-horizontal speaker slots.
Front surfaces with substantial adornment.
No front bezel at all.
Tablet Design Tips

Overall shape that isn’t rectangular, or doesn’t have rounded corners.
Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
Front surface that isn’t entirely flat.
Profiles that aren’t thin.
Cluttered appearance.
 
They had to end up paying tonnes to Nokia too didnt they?

Its kinda funny that a patently whorish company like Apple can be in patent disregard of so many patents!
 
Zzoram said:
The Apple hate in patent threads is because Apple started the patent war by trying to ban phones using multitouch, then trying to ban phones using swipe to unlock, then successfully banning Samsung phones in several markets.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd argue the patent wars started because companies like IV started popping up with legal backing to sue on the behalf of inventors. Before, these companies could go through protracted bargaining sessions to cross-license. Now there are so many independent hands reaching for the cookie jar that it makes far more sense to litigate it out.

Apple/Samsung is actually rather friendly, all things considered. Apple does have the power to a) buy out patent litigator firms and b) pull large manufacturing contracts, both of which are basically nuclear options in terms of the stock of their opponents.

I'm guessing no matter how far this goes, they eventually sign some sort of deal, somebody gets some sort of Press Release of satisfaction, and then they go to war again in 12 months.
 
Pristine_Condition said:
This is a FRAND case. Nothing to see here, and if you think this will result in a product ban for Apple, you are crazy.
Click to expand...

This FRAND case is significant because Motorola extended the licensing as they are required to, and Apple rejected it. Once that happened, it freed Motorolas hands to go on a rampage. FRAND just means they have to offer fair and reasonable terms, and the same or similar terms as offered to anyone else. Motorola did this, in 2007 and again in 2010. But Apple refused and continued to infringe, so they had best ready their pocketbooks, one way or the other.

This time, its serious. It very well could result in a product ban, or an extremely extremely high payout for previous infringement (They wont get to just pay back-fees at the FRAND rate, Apple missed out on their chances at that rate when they decided to say "Fuck your license" back in 2007) along with cross licensing or paid licensing in the future, which ironically (or maybe not ironically) would be very very nice for Google after the merger in terms of protecting Android.
 
Cipherr said:
This FRAND case is significant because Motorola extended the licensing as they are required to, and Apple rejected it.
Click to expand...

Uh, Apple rejected Motorola wanting to license it as if it WASN'T a FRAND case...which it clearly is. Apple rejected Motorola wanting MORE MONEY THAN FRAND ALLOWS.

Ars Technica said:
Apple apparently made an offer to license the patent on FRAND terms going forward. But the matter was complicated by the fact that Apple's agreement included a clause that would allow it to try and have the patent invalidated if Motorola tried to seek damages for past infringement over and above the agreed FRAND rate.

Apple is in fact contesting the validity of the patent in suit in another federal court in Germany. Obviously it doesn't want to have to pay for infringing a patent that might not be valid.
Click to expand...

See?

Cipherr said:
Once that happened, it freed Motorolas hands to go on a rampage. FRAND just means they have to offer fair and reasonable terms, and the same or similar terms as offered to anyone else. Motorola did this, in 2007 and again in 2010. But Apple refused and continued to infringe, so they had best ready their pocketbooks, one way or the other.

This time, its serious. It very well could result in a product ban, or an extremely extremely high payout for previous infringement (They wont get to just pay back-fees at the FRAND rate, Apple missed out on their chances at that rate when they decided to say "Fuck your license" back in 2007) along with cross licensing or paid licensing in the future, which ironically (or maybe not ironically) would be very very nice for Google after the merger in terms of protecting Android.
Click to expand...


Again, the reason Apple said "Fuck You" to their licensing terms is because Motorola wants more money than FRAND cases normally allow. That's what FRAND is all about, you can't have a company holding standards hostage with monopolistic intent.

Having your tech become part of a standard is a huge windfall, but at the same time, there's FRAND protection to keep competition in the marketplace. If you don't like to play by those rules, you shouldn't have allowed your tech to become part of the standard in the first place.

It's all about getting a court to reconcile what is "reasonable." It's a total kneejerk to say this "victory" for Motorola gets anyone closer to a resolution, and it certainly doesn't mean Apple's mobile products are currently in grave danger of bein blocked from sale.
 
samus i am said:
image.php
Click to expand...

finally an avatar-quote. all i need now is a tag. heh.

Shiggy said:
Is anyone actually using those? All I know either have an iPhone or an Android device (or still an old Nokia). Might change with the new Nokia phones though.
Click to expand...

yeah it is not too popular atm. nokias new phones and the current samsung phones and the htc titan seem to sell allright, so maybe microsoft can gain some marketshare. it is a great OS (and i have this avatar because of the great os, not vice versa) and i have a lot of fun with it. like every thing it has flaws, but it is the first os that feels like it is breaking out of the grid-of-applications-type that has been here since windows 3.11 desktop
 
Pristine_Condition said:
Uh, Apple rejected Motorola wanting to license it as if it WASN'T a FRAND case...which it clearly is. Apple rejected Motorola wanting MORE MONEY THAN FRAND ALLOWS.



See?




Again, the reason Apple said "Fuck You" to their licensing terms is because Motorola wants more money than FRAND cases normally allow. That's what FRAND is all about, you can't have a company holding standards hostage with monopolistic intent.

Having your tech become part of a standard is a huge windfall, but at the same time, there's FRAND protection to keep competition in the marketplace. If you don't like to play by those rules, you shouldn't have allowed your tech to become part of the standard in the first place.

It's all about getting a court to reconcile what is "reasonable." It's a total kneejerk to say this "victory" for Motorola gets anyone closer to a resolution, and it certainly doesn't mean Apple's mobile products are currently in grave danger of bein blocked from sale.
Click to expand...

You dont seem to actually even be reading the stuff you are quoting.

Do you know why Motorolas initial deal asked for money above and beyond the FRAND rate? Its because Apple stole patented tech, and didnt seek the licensing like they should have. Because of this, Motorola feels (as does the judge in this ruling) that allowing them to simply pay the FRAND rate only after stealing isnt FAIR. It creates a scenario where there is no penalty to stealing first, as opposed to going through proper channels to obtain the FRAND licensing the way you are supposed to. Why in the fuck would anyone do anything OTHER than infringe, if the worst case scenario was merely paying past infringement at the fixed FRAND fee?

No, if you steal first, then the patent holder is entitled to more than they would have been had you done it the legit way. That makes perfect sense, and the courts agreed. Thats why it was ok for Motorola to see PAST damages against apple higher than the FRAND rate.

Here, read, for gods sake:

Motorola overcame Apple's FRAND defense because Apple reserved the right to contest the validity of the patent-in-suit "when, insofar and for as long as" Motorola would seek damages for past infringement -- which in Motorola's opinion goes back to the year 2007 -- above a FRAND rate.

The logic presented by Motorola's counsel convinced the court: someone using a patented invention should have to pay a price for being found to have infringed. While competition law requires the patent holder to extend a license on FRAND terms going forward, past infringement is a different matter. If, in the alternative, damages for past infringement were limited to a FRAND royalty rate, Motorola and Judge Voß argue, an infringer might ultimately get to use the patent on more favorable terms than someone procuring a license at the outset. They say that favorable terms would result from a scenario in which payments for using the patent in the past can be avoided by proving the patent invalid.
Click to expand...

So fucking ironic, that you come in talking about 'Playing by the rules' when it was Apple who didn't play by the rules, they infringed, then started a case to try and invalidate the patent, rather than properly licensing it the way they were fucking supposed to. And as a result, they lost the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple delays Siri AI to iPhone 17 (after advertising it for 16 Pro), gets sued
16
1K
Haint replied
Apple Event | It's Glowtime | iPhone 16 models, Apple Watch and AirPods refresh
Event  2 3 4 5 6
256
23K
Soodanim replied
Tim Apple announces Season 3 of Severance
36
3K
kapshin replied
  • Poll
Apple is reportedly planning a design overhaul for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS
2
70
4K
Magic Carpet replied
Can you create a playlist in apple music without a sub ?
2
394
thefool replied
Top Bottom