Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Google Patents Apple Your Rights Online

Preliminary ITC Ruling: Motorola Not In Violation of Apple's Patents 106

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the obvious-things-might-be-obvious dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Preliminary ITC Ruling: Motorola Not In Violation of Apple's Patents

Comments Filter:
  • by symbolset (646467) * on Monday January 16, 2012 @08:43PM (#38719972) Journal
    Florian Mueller to the white courtesy phone. One order of crow to go for Mr. Mueller.
    • by andydread (758754)
      Lol That is a troll I haven't seen around here lately.
    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      Now now, trolls are never wrong, they just blame the guy who made their bridge.
      • by Xest (935314)

        To be fair, I doubt he cares, he did his shilling, and collected his pay cheque.

        The real problem is that sites like The Register, the BBC and so forth allow people to make money like that, by repeatedly parroting their tosh, even after he's been heavily discredited and forced to admit he's in the employ of Microsoft.

        Lying is only now a workable profession, because the media are happy to publish lies, so I'd personally blame the media.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126)

          It's because the media doesn't employ experts itself, it employs journalists whose "skill" is to parrot tiny fragments of what people they think are experts are saying in a way that misleads the reader into thinking the story is worth something.

          • by Xest (935314)

            But it goes beyond that, when the BBC has had it pointed out to them in response to a number of articles by a number of people that he's not trustworthy with many sources and explanations to back that up it's no longer a case of a journalist knowing better, it's a journalist, and the managers who have also been informed of the problem outright not doing their jobs, and that makes the BBC outright complicit in corruption of factual reporting.

            The Register I could understand it from, their whole business model

    • He'll do what he's done for any pro-Google or anti-Microsoft ruling -- conveniently stop following the case on his blog. (See Oracle vs. Google, any of the Galaxy Tab victories)

      Seriously, he's not even trying. MS must be paying him a bundle. He doesn't even make a secret of it (read his boilerplate on his blog -- can't disclose current client, MS largest and most common client, you do the math)

  • by mjwx (966435) on Monday January 16, 2012 @08:47PM (#38720014)
    I remember a time where companies would get 3 or 4 years of quality FUD out of a false patent claim. All Apple got were a few months and some Florian Mueller posts. I'd be asking for my money back, at least from Mueller.
    • by hedwards (940851)

      Apple ought to have known better, I still remember the days when they were all "think different." Then they got those lame Mac vs., PC ads where all I wanted to do was beat the crap out of the Mac and probably steal his lunch money.

      Apple used to mean something to people, but at this point you'd have to be a cultist to think there's anything special going on. There are a few things like Time machine that are kind of cool, but most of it is derivative and at best a refinement of things that have come before.

    • by microbee (682094)

      This is ITC, not the ordinary court.

  • iLawyer 4G (Score:5, Informative)

    by omganton (2554342) on Monday January 16, 2012 @08:48PM (#38720024)
    The intellectual property lawsuits are getting out of hand. The constant litigation between Apple and [insert every other phone manufacturer] is not only holding back innovation, it's passing the costs on to the consumer. The amount of money these companies spend fighting over small print, legal wording, and patent technicalities is atrocious; in the end, we pay for their lawyers and court fees. Apple should be encouraging competition, not trying to crush it. Let the consumer decide if Motorola deserves to compete with Apple, not a court.
  • by Nethemas the Great (909900) on Monday January 16, 2012 @08:56PM (#38720104)
    There's still plenty of time to grease some palms before the ITC makes its ruling.
    • Evidently I ruffled some fanboy's feathers...
      • by Rogerborg (306625)
        Mmm, they're probably unclear on what "lobbying" really means. Like, you can say you're an "escort", but it's just a fancy word for disease ridden whore.
        • Ah, perhaps you're right it was a bit erudite... Ok, hows this? "There's still plenty of time to explain to the ITC panel the wisdom of ruling in favor of Apple." Will that work?
  • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Monday January 16, 2012 @09:38PM (#38720440) Homepage

    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.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...