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: (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?
seems so (Score:4, Informative)
Did a Google Streetview car run over your dog or something?
or more likely, he is one of them 4-5 shill accounts which always end up having a first post against google/pro microsoft in all relevant subjects. someone was tracking them. i guess s/he will post in this thread too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Motorola is in the cable industry and they can pla (Score:2)
Motorola is in the cable industry and they can play some real hard ball.
Hay apple good luck getting a tv service with NO Comcast / or NBC content.
Re:Motorola is in the cable industry and they can (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Nahhhhh - don't put them out of business. Just put a huge dent in their money bags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Really. You're making baseless accusations of serious crimes with zero evidence, and you're standing in judgement of ethics?
Hunh.
Typical Apple zealot (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is always right. Evidence, and logic, are irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is always right. Evidence, and logic, are irrelevant.
Really. You're making baseless accusations of sainthood with zero evidence, and you're standing in judgement of ethics?
Hunh.
(Still not quite sure why this was a reply to my post, but hey, might as well play along).
Re: (Score:3)
which is why half the stories are about Apple, and the other half about google. MS gets in there sometimes.
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
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: (Score:2)
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
And that smaller company would be Barnes and Noble. B&N is standing up to Microsoft quite well so far, but things are still in the early stages.
Motorola also stood up to MS ... and only one of the patents in the lawsuit actually stuck (and it was a pretty minor one at that), the rest were shown to be the rubbish that they were. Once Motorola officially becomes part of Google I would expect things to get even more interesting.
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft got an ex-IBM person to run their patent strategy. There's an old story about when Sun was a startup. They got a visit from some IBM lawyers, who said 'we have these 7 patents that you infringe, and we'd like you to sign a cross-licensing deal with us'. The Sun guys looked at the patents and systematically demolished them. The IBM lawyers replied that, yes, these patents might be invalid, but asked if they were willing to bet the company on the fact that none of the other IBM patents were vali
Re:Bribes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Newton resolved this flamewar coupla hundreds of years ago, apparently said something about standing, shoulders, giants. And it was not Apple's Newton, mind you.
My point exactly!
Re: (Score:3)
Newton was crediting those that came before him, and sometimes contemporary to him, Apple OTOH seems to believe that they invented all sorts of things that they didn't.Smartphones existed prior to the iPhone and database driven UI existed in MP3 players prior to the iPod, but Apple believes in both cases to have invented them, or at least that's what their public face says.
Ultimately, Apple is with MS and any number of other patent trolls out there, trying to get a buck for something which they have no righ
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my, and so spins the wheel and we are back at the seven hundredth flamebait thread about whether Apple invents or not... *sigh*
"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again."
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: (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: (Score:2)
Their business model is a success and from someone who thoroughly researches everything s/he buys (from electronics to socks), I have to say that I don't understand what the point of their markup is.
However, I was referring to their legal model as a failure, which thankfully, will keep their business model in check.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Software is copyrighted. Algorithms are patented. I think when people talk about "software" patents they can be assumed to be referring to algorithms patents.
Re:Bribes? (Score:5, Informative)
Slide to unlock
Showing pictures on a phone
Placement of status buttons and progress bars (on a phone)
These are all software implementations, not algorithms. They should all be thrown out as patents.
Re:Bribes? (Score:5, Funny)
Did you really register as a Slashdot user just to post that?
I see that you registered your account when the story went "red" and made some random comment in another story while you were waiting for the Apple story to turn "green", so you could be the first post. This is well-known sock-puppet troll behavior. Around here we tend to not look so kindly on people who are paid trolls.
Which of the "New Media Strategies" companies do you work for, "HankMoody"? Don't they train you guys to do a little better job of setting up your sockpuppet accounts?
Are you going to make the Slashdot community embarrass you and your bosses or will you just come clean? Tell us who you work for and we'll go easy on you.
Look, we all know that it's hard to find a job these days, and a lot of people are doing all sorts of demeaning things to put a little bread on the table. I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, but you've got to understand that when paid shills like yourself start to overrun an online community, it corrupts everything. People no longer feel comfortable discussing serious topics when the user base is seeded with shills.
If you're effort is to undermine a thread about sleazy Apple behavior, when you post as a shill it just makes people hate Apple all that much more. And once you're outed, you're placed on a permanent pay-no-mind list and then your work is for nothing. We realize that you're only here to disrupt the free exchange of honest opinions and all of your efforts backfire. At worst you'll be outed and your minimum wage job as an internet shill will be over. It's happened before.
Now I'll ask again: Which of the new media strategies companies do you work for? Think carefully before you answer. Accept the fact that this "HankMoody" account is burned up. Your cover is blown. It's over. Might as well come clean. We'll be watching for you now, HankMoody.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did you really register as a Slashdot user just to post that?
It's more likely that it's bonch, only his main account was finally modded down into karma oblivion where he belongs. I don't think there has been an Apple story in the last several months where bonch didn't have the first post - said first post invariably explaining in great detail how Google is bad and Apple is good.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
where are my mod points!!!!!!!
my kingdom for a mod point.
my right nut for a mod point. ...well...
maybe my left one.
Re: (Score:1)
I feel like I had this discussion before [slashdot.org].
First of all, why do you take my assertion of "there are all PoVs represented on /." as confirmation of your anti-Apple bias observations?
Second, accusation of "no references" are quite strange to hear from you, after your thoroughly based on not one, but two comments you consider anti-Apple getting modded up. If I find you 12 comments modded as I told, will it be reference enough for you?
Didn't I tell you what you can do? Crank together a bot, filter comments by App
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be the judge of that.
Maybe you're just a better-trained shill. We'll just have to see....
Paging Florian Mueller (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Courts are becoming more efficient. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is ITC, not the ordinary court.
iLawyer 4G (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:1)
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Design Patents -- they were created by man, they're a half-assed overlap of utility patents and trademarks, most /.ers don't understand them, and they have a plan.
Oh, and the Coke bottle is one, in fact the canonical example.
Re: (Score:2)
GP's claim was "holding back innovation." Now, if he had said, "constant litigation is holding back sales," then he'd be absolutely right.
Don't be a pedant. "Holding back sales" obviously holds back innovation, both by making the innovative improvements in the Samsung product unavailable to the market and by reducing by the expected amount of litigation expenses the financial incentive for prospective competitors to build innovative new products.
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:4)
It is becoming apparent that the reason you think as you do is that you have no idea how patents work.
Do you honestly not understand that a product can simultaneously be highly innovative and allegedly infringe a third party's patent? Hint: Nothing is 100% new. Everything builds on what came before. You can have a product with a thousand innovative features and all it takes is a single one more that happens to have already existed and been patented by a third party to have it declared as infringing and removed from the market.
Not patents (Score:1)
Samsung was not made unavailable because of anything related to patents.
This is purely design copy rulings. We do not have software patents in Europe.
So if Samsung made their device ugly, they could put all their software patent infringing technology inside, as long as it did not look and feel too much like an iDevice.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was due for an Australian release in October. Due to legal interference from Apple it was not released until December.
So yes, they are trying to hold back competition and by extent innovation. Just because they haven't been successful at it does not make it OK.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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:iLawyer 4G (Score:5, Informative)
You mean besides the direct effect of asking for an injunction on any product that even might be better, simply because it competes.
Well it's designed to raise the cost of entry by increasing the risks. Smaller companies that can afford to be more innovative then Apple have a huge disincentive to release new products out of the fear of an expensive law suit that they would be unable to fight.
Reduction in innovation is a direct result of reduction in competition. Attempting to stop competition from releasing new products reduces the new technologies available on the market.
Wrong. The German injunction was over a design patent. Not an innovation and that was overturned. The Australian injunction was voluntary. Samsung agreed to it and the first Judge, Justice Anabelle Bennett's major complaint was against Samsung's Lawyers, not a judgement on the technology itself. This judgement was overturned by a full bench of the Federal court AND a full bench of the High court. This is a very clear indication that the injunction was wrong.
So when you learn the truth, they actually are good examples. Apple are using litigation to stop competition because they are unable to compete. As I said before, just because they aren't very good at it doesn't make it OK.
Re: (Score:2)
The German injunction was over a design patent.
Also please keep in mind that getting granted an injunction in Germany, says very little about the validity of the case. Unless you very obviously don't have a case you'll get your injunction. This is balanced by the fact that you are then liable for damages if you later fail to win your case. So Apple getting an injunction merely means they felt sure enough of their case to risk it.
Re: (Score:2)
The German injunction was over a design patent.
Also please keep in mind that getting granted an injunction in Germany, says very little about the validity of the case. Unless you very obviously don't have a case you'll get your injunction. This is balanced by the fact that you are then liable for damages if you later fail to win your case. So Apple getting an injunction merely means they felt sure enough of their case to risk it.
It's the same in Australia. The Injunction Apple tried to get was called interlocutory injunction, which is a temporary injunction during an ongoing case, which is not a judgement on the case itself. The actual infringement case between Apple and Samsung in Australia has not been held yet and I doubt Apple have a chance of winning that.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, the barrier to entry is so high that we'll probably never see another new phone company entering the market. You may see lots of competition among the companies that have lots of money to throw around (e.g. Samsung, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, Nokia, LG, Amazon), but have you ever thought about the small companies that are getting crushed? I honestly don't have a clue how HTC survives, but if another of their ilk comes about amidst these stupid lawsuits, I'll eat my shoe.
Re:iLawyer 4G (Score:4, Informative)
Because they are the leading smartphone manufacturer in the US [canalys.com] (at least as of Q3 last year). That doesn't reflect worldwide numbers or revenue generated, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. My last 3 phones have been HTC and I'll continue to buy their phones. Their damn good phones, affordable, and are often hacker-friendly(er).
Re: (Score:3)
True, but when you consider the strength of your legal team, what matters most is the amount of money you have to afford a crack staff. Also, I'm no businessperson, but I'd imagine that if they're not making good margins on each unit sold, then as a company, they're really not growing.
In any case, I really wish that Google would choose them to produce the Nexus line again. Samsung makes a good phone no doubt, but there's something to be said about a company that publicly unlocks all of its phone's bootloade
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung makes a good phone no doubt, but there's something to be said about a company that publicly unlocks all of its phone's bootloaders.
That's because in case of HTC, they were locked to begin with, so they had to release the unlock tool. Meanwhile, Samsung just didn't lock theirs. At this point, I don't see how either one is really more hacker friendly than the other, to be honest. Both have explicit policy to not lock the bootloaders on future devices.
In any case, since Nexus devices are always unlocked by design regardless of the manufacturer, it's kinda irrelevant. And I'm glad that they did go with Samsung for the latest Nexus, if only
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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?
Given that "innovation" is defined as delivering new inventions to end customers, this becomes, in a sense a stupid question. Blocking innovation is exactly what patents are designed to do. The Magsafe connector is a really neat idea. By now, if it were possible, at least one PC manufacturer would have an equivalent. The reason they don't is because Apple has a patent and they can use that patent to block innovation. This extends simply to include all of the Apple lawsuits against Samsung which held ba
Apple hasn't Lost Yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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.
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: (Score:1)
No, I understand that. I just think it seems win-win for Apple. If I'm Joe Schmoe and I just purchased some patent and I decide to sue Apple to get money. It seems like setting a precedent now on stuff that doesn't matter when they have money to burn on lawyers saves them a hassle later. They can say: "Hey Joe Schmoe, we have all these victories that prove your patent claim is false" or on the other hand they can say "We tried to make same claim Joe Schmoe, but as per all of these cases we lost, we can prov