Preliminary ITC Ruling: Motorola Not In Violation of Apple's Patents 106
SpuriousLogic writes with a preliminary ruling in the ITC case between Apple and Motorola. Quoting eWeek: "Motorola is celebrating an initial triumph over Apple, after a U.S. International Trade Commission administrative law judge issued an initial determination (PDF) finding that Motorola Mobility has not violated any of the three patents listed in an October 2010 lawsuit Apple filed against the Droid maker. ... The determination isn't the final say ... in March, the ruling will be reviewed by a six-member ITC panel that will announce the ultimate ruling. However, according to Zacks Equity Research, it's unusual for the ITC panel, which has the power to block device imports, to contradict a judge's determination."
Re:Bribes? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to be clear about patents when the patents themselves (never mind the patent system itself) are unintelligible.
Did a Google Streetview car run over your dog or something?
Mebbe Tim Kooks won't get the 378Million after all (Score:5, Insightful)
Hope that this will be the first of many many defeats Apple will face in the future
I've had enough of patent trolling, no matter if it comes from Microsoft or Apple
Courts are becoming more efficient. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:5, Insightful)
The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation
Really? Because I see a whole bunch of new phones at CES. Do you have any evidence that innovation is being held back, or is this just a gut "but it must be so" feeling?
There are/were a bunch of countries with Samsung tablet unavailability because of Apple-requested injunctions. It's usually hard to point at the status quo and make a good case for what would have been if only something else had happened, so I think that's pretty solid evidence for the GP's claim.
Apple hasn't Lost Yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that the one where the judge decided that a rectangular near to edge screen display flat device with beveled edges and rounded corners as well as a black coloration was too close to the patented look of the ipads?
HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU PATENT THE BASIC APPEARANCE OF A PHYSICAL OBJECT ?!?!?!?
Honestly, other than it being black, pretty much everything else is engineering functionality of a page like handheld display device of our current technological capabilities.
As for black, that's one of the standard colors accepted by businesses, so even the color really isn't a choice, it's a necessity for anything that wants to be taken seriously by the business world.
White, Cream, Gray, and Black are really the only colors that business seems to like, and for that matter, white and cream seem to be out of style again with gray in a close lead to the bottom.
Re:Bribes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even moreso, it's Apple's goal of a means to enforce their ridiculously marked up prices and, on top of that, ensure that they're the only vendor allowing them to mark it up even higher. Even Apple knows that their pricing models are obviously unsustainable. Remember how the initial Iphone was $600? It would probably be even worse today if they had their way in the courts and crushed all of their competitors.
Thankfully, their model is a failure.
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, that litigation holds back sales and marketplace competition... But "and by extent innovation"? How does litigation over an existing product in any way affect innovation regarding new products? Can you logically support that extension you're proposing?
That is easy. How much time do you think it takes to develop a product if you have to pass several design aspects through the opinions of IP Lawyers and iterate until it is accepted?
If the fear of litigation exists because of what happened to previous products it is natural that new products will be delayed because you have to try to design around stupid patents.
Re:Bribes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you think Apple gives a shi*? (Score:1, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Apple is terrified. Samsung just surpassed them, and is now the #1 smartphone manufacturer. Apple's tablet marketshare has been dropping dramatically, and now they'll be competing against brand-name $249 Tegra 3 tablets and the Kindle Fire. Smart TVs are set to be the Next Big Thing, and nearly every one at CES was Android.
They're trying to delay the inevitable with lawsuits, but Apple is quickly becoming the new Microsoft.
Motorola should sue Apple back (Score:4, Insightful)
Suing Apple right out of business would be great. Although I'm sure that's too much to ask for.
I used to like Apple, before Apple became a thuggish, IP scam company.
Re:Bribes? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's clear to a shill that patents were violated.
Problem is, software patents are an oxymoron. Software is properly copyrighted, not patented. Until you can understand that point, we'll probably not agree on anything else.
If we ever get past that point, then we'll begin by discussing the concept of a squarish box with rounded corners that don't snag and cut you or your clothing, one face of which is the display, taking up all the room possible on that face. Good grief, there are patents aplenty for real innovation. Patents were never meant to stifle innovation. What did you want Motorola and the rest to do - make a spherical device instead of squarish?
Apple does not innovate period (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPhone was a huge success, and that's great. But it does not mean that Apple invented the smart phone. And it certainly does not mean that Apple invented every technology included in an iPhone - such as color icons.
That is something that Apple, and Apple zealots, pretend they don't understand.
Re:Do you think Apple gives a shi*? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple doesn't care, then why is Apple constantly patent scamming?
BTW: I think you got the roles reversed. This is not about Apple being sued, it's about one of Apple's scam lawsuits failing.
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:4, Insightful)