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."
ITC usually reject, but a ban isn't the only goal (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost all applications for an ITC import ban are rejected:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission [swpat.org]
But that's not the point. For a number of weeks or months, there's a cloud hanging over the target company and investors don't know if a device will ever be on sale in the USA. It's serious FUD, for free.
An actual import ban would just be monopolist icing on the FUD cake.
Re:Mebbe Tim Kooks won't get the 378Million after (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple, unfortunately, escalated the patent cold war which turned them into a target for all other companies as pre-emptive defense.
Microsoft, despite its bluster, hasn't been willing to take an active role in suing other corporations, and is instead resorting to a less profitable extortion which keeps them in the black without dangerous risk. The companies they're dealing with also aren't willing to be the first to go into court about this and just pay off Microsoft.
Sure, Microsoft might be able to win in court for greater profits compared to their current extortion fees, but that also has the risk of backfiring as it did for Apple. Microsoft isn't willing to run the risk whereas Apple, in their arrogance, tried to prevent their competition from taking the field. And now Apple is paying for it.
I expect Apple to keep taking the hits for the next few years while Microsoft continues playing "nice" until a smaller company, with arrogant stupidity, decides to poke the sleeping lion. After which Microsoft will slaughter them and hang them out to dry before going back to playing nice with everybody else.
Of course, unless Microsoft actually creates something new enough to bring in the big bucks, they're going to slowly waste away while dragging everyone else down with them thanks to their chokehold on patents.
Re:Bribes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Thankfully, their model is a failure.
Record profits each year [wolframalpha.com] for the last seven years in a row. I wish I made failures like that!
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that, on the other side of the litigation, those lawsuits are protecting profits and ability to recoup R&D investment. The lawsuits reduce the incentives to make marginally innovative products or direct copies, as in the Samsung suits, but increase the incentives to make highly innovative products. The greater the innovation, the more likely to defend an infringement suit.
There is a whole list of flaws in your argument:
For one thing, no amount of innovation can eliminate or even substantially reduce the likelihood of litigation -- litigation comes from vague, numerous, overbroad patents. I assume the original iPhone was sufficiently innovative for your tastes, but that didn't stop them from getting sued by then-incumbents. As that example proves, creating a more innovative product may increase your chances of getting sued, because if the new product starts taking over the market then the incumbent players may turn to litigation out of desperation.
The sort of "innovation" you're talking about -- the kind that comes through a team of lawyers telling the engineers what they have to design around -- is nothing like the innovation that anybody wants to promote. It is nothing but a highly wasteful effort at reinventing the wheel. It directs the finite time and effort of engineering talent to doing the same thing in a slightly different way, rather than putting it toward actually doing something new.
In addition to that, the alleged increase in innovation on the part of the company initiating the litigation is nowhere in evidence. Apple continues to remain highly profitable notwithstanding the alleged copying, so there is no want for revenues to fund future R&D. More than that, the competition is what requires them to actually continue producing new innovative products -- if a company can keep its competitors' products off the market with patents then it doesn't need to spend anything more on its own R&D until the patents expire. Competitors continually producing better products mean that everyone has to keep R&D fully funded in order to stay ahead of the curve -- it forces innovative companies to stay innovative rather than innovating once and then litigating forever after.
Re:Mebbe Tim Kooks won't get the 378Million after (Score:4, Interesting)
To be honest, MS played the patent game a lot smarter than Apple did. MS just makes vendors pay to shut up, even though (true to form), they are utter sleezebags about it. Apple on the other hand was totally out of their minds when they developed their legal strategy (perhaps, once again, true to form). Did Steve Jobs really think he could sue other phone manufacturers out of existence? Did they actually think that they would be the only ones that should be allowed to make smartphones? His ego always was his downfall.
In any case, now I'd like to see someone do something about MS. Another Software Tax is a bad precedent for the industry...