Motorola Ordered To Recall Android Phones and Tablets In Germany 190
puddingebola sends word of a German court decision yesterday which found that Google's Motorola Mobility must recall all of its Android tablets and phones that infringe on Apple's patent for "rubber-band" scrolling. From the Guardian:
"The dramatic decision, the latest in an escalating war between Apple and the smartphone and set-top box company MMI, follows earlier cases in which Apple had to disable automatic "push" delivery of email to its iPhone and iPads after MMI won a separate patent fight in Germany. The recall will not take effect immediately because Apple will have to request a ban on specific products and provide a €25m (£20m) bond, while MMI can appeal. However, the court indicated that it was unlikely that an appeal against the validity of the patent would succeed. MMI, with Google's backing, is expected to continue the appeal. The court also ruled that MMI owed Apple damages for past infringement."
Stop supporting APPLE!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Get a clue people. Apple just wants to corner the market and stop consumers of having choices, that are cheaper than theirs. WAKE UP STUPID PEOPLE!...
Stop buying Apple products...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't an Apple problem, this is a patent problem.
Google and Motorolla would enforce this patent on Apple if they happened to own it. They already enforced another equally trivial patent on push email, so that Apple devices can't use it in Germany.
These sorts of concepts are NOT novel and unique and should NOT be patented.
To use a car analogy, It's like going back in time 100 years and patenting "wheels made of rubber" and "automobiles that exhaust fumes to the air" and "the use of heating elements to
George Selden (Score:5, Informative)
To use a car analogy, It's like going back in time 100 years and patenting [...] "automobiles that exhaust fumes to the air"
Except George Selden [wikipedia.org] patented exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
TIL some of the earliest automobiles were electric
The Electric Vehicle Company was founded as a holding company of battery-powered electric automobile manufacturers made up of several car companies assembled by Isaac L. Rice beginning in 1897. It was taken over in 1899 by William C. Whitney and P. A. B. Widener's, thus forming the so-called "Lead Cab Trust," which hoped to develop a monopoly by placing electric cabs on the streets of major American cities.
The firm actually made and sold about two thousand e
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an interesting fact related to that: the first person killed in an automobile accident in the United States, was struck by an electric car. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Wright brothers also patented everything they could involving aircraft, including ideas first implemented by Chanute & Lilienthal. As a result, American aviation withered for a quarter of a century until the Wrights were forced to place their patents into a common pool.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an Apple problem. They are terrified of consumers having a choice, and they are systematically using trivial enhancements to existing idea as ammunition to block alternative products.
They could quite easily stock pile their silly little patents and use them as an arsenal against patent trolls that come after them. They don't have to remove other companies' products from markets.
It really is foolish. There might be some short term gains, but the customer will change their minds down the road, it's al
Re:Stop supporting APPLE!! (Score:5, Informative)
Google and Motorolla would enforce this patent on Apple if they happened to own it. They already enforced another equally trivial patent on push email, so that Apple devices can't use it in Germany.
Except that Google and Motorola have only started to enforce their patents against Apple after Apple started to sue every Android manufacturer in sight.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you feel that the problem is mutually exclusive? If there was a loophole in law that allowed me to murder people, wouldn't I still be a major asshole if I abused the loophole to kill as many people as possible? The patent problem is a legal problem and the Apple problem is a moral problem. Please stop conflating the two.
There is a reason why they don't own many
Re: (Score:3)
This is both an Apple problem as well as a patent problem.
Many companies which are active in the same business as Apple have been able to do what Apple is now trying to do - block competition by abusing the braindead patent system. The difference between those many companies and Apple is that the majority of them have not stooped so low as Apple in their abuse of the system. Those companies which did use patents against Apple did so only after Apple fire
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will the price of Samsung Tablets drop due to the extra inventory?
Re: (Score:2)
They will move all stock to stores just out side the german borders in France+Poland+Chek
Germans can buy their own countries branded german tablets. There are some, ironically, probably violating the same patent, but still allowed to be sold.
Thank god Apple will never have such patent luck in China. The Judges , being part of the CCP, will ultimately favour the state and state corporations.
Re:Stop supporting APPLE!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the patent is question. It's an idea, not an implementation. I don't imagine Motorola copied Apple's code to implement it. This is the problem with software patents. Even if Motorola's implementation is vastly more efficient ... still 'infringing'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I gots me a patent on incrementing a counter by 1, does that count (no pun intended).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the patent is question. It's an idea, not an implementation. I don't imagine Motorola copied Apple's code to implement it. This is the problem with software patents. Even if Motorola's implementation is vastly more efficient ... still 'infringing'.
It's not an "idea". It is a user interface element that gives users intuitable feedback about what is happening, and that user interface element didn't exist before Apple invented it. And I thought by now anyone would know that for patents it doesn't matter whether you copy someone else's implementation, what matters is that your implementation does the same thing.
Re:Stop supporting APPLE!! (Score:4, Interesting)
It is an idea. Patents aren't supposed to cover the result, but rather the implementation or the process of achieving that result. That process should be more specific than "with a smart phone".
Re:Stop supporting APPLE!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the user interface element in question did exist before Apple "invented" it, it's just that it hadn't been used on touchscreen phones or tablets yet because they didn't actually exist (and neither did the technology required to make them). In fact, all of the iPhone and iPod user interface elements Apple has patents on were originally invented by someone else.
it copied real life (Score:2)
It did exist before apple made it.
It existed in the real world, and i bet you , if you searched all 10000 games made over 20 years, you will find some game there that had some weird menu or interface that had the same scrolling.
It doesnt have to be touch screen based, but any human input, ie, mouse + button press + move mouse Y coords, same as any input.
Btw, didnt the Wii do this too ?
And the early xbmc + dashboards for chipped xboxs.
Implementing the law of physics in a GUI doesnt deserve a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
unlike itunes i can't download a file to keep. i have to keep on downloading from play with my phone which takes long than copying over USB
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, you can very easily. Any movies that you buy (not rent) on Play can permanently be downloaded to your device. You just click on the little push-pin icon and it will be downloaded and stored. I currently have 4 movies from Google play on my Nexus 7 and Asus Transformer that I can watch anytime, anywhere.
I also have 13 movies available from Flixster/Ultraviolet on my tablets because I started using them first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's for the best. Android phones are full of malware. So this will make germany a little safer.
Well, since nobody buys Motorola device in Germany either - not really.
Sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they are forced to recall their devices because of a GUI animation effect? How the hell is that proportionate? Was that a major advertised feature or something?
Re: (Score:2)
A company holding the patent for button pressed / unpressed animation could theoretically prevent all software in existance from being sold.
And every 3D game will violate it (Score:2)
All 3d games, simulate a real world in 3D.
Pressing a REAL button , ie a console with a big red button called, "self destruct".
Of course it will animate, because it will simulate real life.
ie the 3d object called button, has a 3d virtual spring underneath it.
Let them patent their source code, but any deviations by one line, should not violate the patent.
Descriptions of the end result should not be patentable, stupid patent lawyers. Dumbasses.
Re: (Score:2)
So they are forced to recall their devices because of a GUI animation effect? How the hell is that proportionate?
Proportionate isn't generally relevant in patent cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just issue an update that removes that little animation and replace it with the animation Jellybeans uses (which is not rubber band like, but which achieves the same purpose).
Re: (Score:2)
All it means is that they have to flash the phones with software that removes said feature(s). When Samsung lost their suit, I got a mandatory OTA "update" for my phone that removed the rubber banding and puzzle-piece unlock interface. This is on a Samsung Stratosphere, I imagine other Samsung phones got similar "updates".
The rubber banding was replaced with a green flashing that works pretty well and communicates the same "end of page" message as the springing. (I like the springing better, honestly) The p
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of a "mandatory" update is scary.
In this respect, dumbphones are smarter than so-called "smart" phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They built on the work of others and made it fly longer than the others did. But they built something innovative and patented that so they were not patent trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
But without patents, would the wright brothers have even bothered to invent the airfoil? And if not, how long would it have been until someone else came up with it?
Patents ARE useful, but they need to be appropriately limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The judge probably has no clue the "stolen" feature copied from Apple can be disabled with a software update.
The judge may or may not know that, but it doesn't matter. The point is that the feature _is not_ disabled. Motorola is free to change their phones.
Re: (Score:3)
How the hell does a recall even work? Does the customer get compensated? Is it just the government stealing property from the citizens?
I understand a recall in the auto industry, but that seems to be voluntary on the part of the consumer. If this is voluntary then it is hilarious. Does the judge think people will just give up their property without a fight and go purchase Apple products?
Re: (Score:2)
A "recall" can come in many forms. When there is a recall on a "defective product" it is not always "users must return this to the manufacturer." In fact, it almost never means that. It usually means "users are advised to bring this thing in for a fix or update." And this is usually voluntary on the part of the users and a requirement of support by the vendor.
A recall is probably the most appropriate remedy. A bad on a product is probably the least appropriate remedy since we're talking about software
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The judge probably has no clue the "stolen" feature copied from Apple can be disabled with a software update.
You are telling me that Motorola could have avoided the decision long before the judge began deliberation by simply updating the software? And that that inaction makes Motorola's violation of the patent less of an issue?
Re: (Score:2)
How could you even come to such an amazingly inept conclusion? He was saying the judge could have ordered the feature be patched out through a software update like all other system software updates that don't need physical access to the device. A mass recall over a removable UI feature is like detonating a nuclear device to wipe out an ant hill. Golly gee wiz, you Apple people...
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even remotely what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
You know little if anything about how Android operates, then, if that's the implication you got. Android OS patches like the one required to patch out the UI bouncy scroll functionality could be submitted through the android store Google Play as a mandatory update. I made no such implication that a recall was necessary to do anything I said. Your own lack of familiarity with the topic brought you to that conclusion, and that is hardly my fault.
Re: (Score:2)
You continue to repeatedly display your ignorance. It's not worth discussing this with you further.
Re: (Score:2)
You are telling me that Motorola could have avoided the decision long before the judge began deliberation by simply updating the software? And that that inaction makes Motorola's violation of the patent less of an issue?
it would sort of make the deliberations moot if they implicitly admitted wrongdoing by changing the software in question, huh? my guess is they actually think they are in the right.
Theft? (Score:1)
Taking the phones and tablets out of people's hands. That's one way to kill the competition, also any good will towards your company too.
Crawl back under your bridge, Apple!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That is the beauty of it, friend AC. The Apple has transcended the need for good will. They are The Apple. They have become the Alpha and the Omega. There is no longer any dark before time, or any scary after time. There is only The Apple. All what remains is the extermination of all heretical followers of the Green Beast, and then the Rounded-Corner Age of iGlory may begin.
Give yourself to The Apple. The Apple is your friend and mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Resistance is futile. You will be Appsimilated.
What if customers just kept their Samsung phones? (Score:2, Interesting)
Would they send cops after them like they do for stolen stuff?
Re: (Score:1)
It's a little known fact about patent law that merely using a patent infringing device is itself patent infringement.
However, this is a civil matter so the police wouldn't be involved. Apple could sue you personally (and win) for using an Android tablet but the negligible damages and appalling publicity mean it's really not worth their while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Apple did do that in the US, so it's not out of the question.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll send militia wearing brown shirts.
Just a sec. I think I hear Mr. Godwin knocking on my door.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, more like blue shirts [apple.com], no?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is going to bother to try to track down the users. Technically, though, those users really would be violating the patent every time they scroll, and there's no other party to indemnify them. Theoretically, should one of them ever anger a Power, the power could point them out to Apple and get sued.
I honestly believe Apple would not follow through, though: the PR hit would be too damaging. Even Apple's evil has practical limits. Threatening users is for companies that have no other business plan (
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that is true. You can violate a patent by making an infringing product, but can you really violate a patent by using a device someone else made and which you bought?
It just seems completely irrational the end-user could be violating a patent they know nothing about and had nothing at all to do wit
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that is true. You can violate a patent by making an infringing product, but can you really violate a patent by using a device someone else made and which you bought?
If you couldn't, then you could get around any patent by setting up a company that creates the infringing product, sells it to you, and goes bankrupt. But as an end user, you may not actually be infringing. For example, a customer wouldn't be infringing on Amazon's one-click patent.
Re: (Score:2)
re: subject
This isn't about Samsung.
500 million phones turned off, yeah right (Score:2)
Imagine that, apple wins, and gets every single android phone to be kicked of 2g/3g networks.
1, it would never happen, and 2, there would be riots burning down all apple stores.
Obligatory (Score:1)
Bounce is obvious to any engineer (Score:5, Interesting)
It's obvious as hell and the only reason I can fathom why it's being upheld is because its merits are being judged by people who are clueless about math or engineering. This is as bad as the XOR cursor patent [google.com], which was also a patent on the graphical representation of a function widely known and commonly used in the respective industry.
Re:Bounce is obvious to any engineer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Just because something is obvious in the physical domain, applying it to a control on a device isn't also
> obvious necessarily
Sure it is. You just go `i'll do a code version of that`. You see slide-to-unlock on a front door - you do a code version of it. What's not obvious about it? Even if you argue that the first instance of something from the real world being copied on a computer is original and not obvious, the second you see it you should go `ah, yes, I can model other computer visual phen
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious as hell
Thirty years of UI interface design where the obvious thing was to stop abruptly when you came to the beginning/end say: WHAT?
Re: (Score:3)
Those were not touch screens though where the idea tends to be that you're physically manipulating simulated objects with your finger. This "obviously" leads to more simulation of basic physics principles.
Think of it another way: Motorola might have to recall their phones because their shit goes "bounce" when it scrolls. It's intuitively ludicrous without any logical deduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Try 25 years of UI interface design when computers didn't have power to spare to do anything more profligate than stop abruptly when you got to the end of a scroll. Smooth scrolling is relatively new too. Do you think it's worthy of a patent just because nobody had the spare CPU cycles to do it before?
1986 amiga (Score:2)
The amiga did scrolling smoothly, made the PC look like shit.
Nothing like accurate interrupts synced to screen refresh or using vblank signal.
Re: (Score:2)
the only reason I can fathom why it's being upheld is because its merits are being judged by people who have been bribed immensely by Apple
FTFY...
Re: (Score:2)
This is where prior art is all about, and while it would be great if someone could legitimately claim to have predated Apple's use of the technique, for the nonce it's likely that Apple is correct in claiming that they invented the feature (regardless of the ethical merits of the patent) .
The point is "obvious to one skilled in the art" so that the "invention" is novel. Being able to code a scroll-page so that it bounces after you hit the bottom is pretty obvious to any programmer which "should" deny this "invention" any patent protection whatsoever. Ideas are not patentable, inventions are and this is not an invention. Being the first to think of the concept or idea does not make the concept or idea novel. It only does so if the implementation itself would be non-obvious to anyone skilled i
Re: (Score:2)
And I think you are thinking about the wrong invention. The invention is not an implementation of "bouncing after you hit the bottom". The invention is an implementation of "giving the user some very intuitive and obvious feedback after they hit the bottom, so they know what's going on". You are free to create your own implementation of "giving the user some very
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how can you say that it is not obvious.
Of course, when the organism that grants patents is paid to grant then and not to reject then, the criteria of non obviousness becomes much easy...
Coders must consult judges daily (Score:2)
Does that mean everything I code daily, I have to consult an army of lawyers to see if I am not accidentally violating one of a billion patents out there?
How do I know some tcp comms methods arent a patent by cisco, or MS ?
You cannot patent ideas.
Else I could patent everything in startrek that doesnt exist, and hope it violates patents in 20 years time.
A recall? (Score:2)
Too much (Score:5, Funny)
Geeze, first I thought I had to buy Samsung products to support them in their fight against Apple, now I have to buy MMI products too? I'm going to go broke trying to support companies that anger Apple. Maybe it's cheaper and easier to just go to the dark side and buy an iPhone and move into the Apple Ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I have mod points :) Funniest comment in this thread.
Re: (Score:3)
You can justify it by saying you are buying an iPhone to support Apple in their fight against Motorola?
It couldn't have happened to a "nicer" company (Score:2, Troll)
I shouldn't take so much pleasure from Moto's misfortune, but fuck it. Motorola are evil bastards, and they deserve to burn for their crimes against Android and humanity. A company that burns with such pure evil, Google's had to send in the entire Vatican several times to try and exorcise the company's senior management... and had to guarantee the Pope himself tickets to Google IO for the next 5 years to get them to come back after the casualties they suffered during last month's attempt.
I'd be *thrilled* i
Firefox? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My 7in screen laptop is portable.
Everything with a CPU is a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, anything that computes is a computer. This includes micro-controllers, the old vacuum-tube computers, even analogue computers. Technically an accurate solar mobile can be considered an analogue computer because it computes the location of planets in the past, present and future.
IP is clearly killing healthy gadget evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent Reform (Score:2)
This is stupid, Apple is damaging itself for real. (Score:2)
So, in the end, Apple is spending a lot of money in lawyers, in counter-lawsuits and damaging it's own image and brand (even if only in vocal minorities) trying to fight a situation that will obviously be impossible to revert
Even if Apple removed every competitor... (Score:3)
Even if Apple removed every competitor from the market, I'm not buying any of their products. I don't want to turn into a moron. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
OTA update is probably a patent (Score:2)
I bet the act of updating software remotely that violates a patent so that it doesnt not violate a patent, is in fact a process that probably has a patent for it.
Will the recall have force of law against owners? (Score:2)
I wonder if it will be a crime to resist the recall, since the owner of the phone is in this case a disinterested third party to the lawsuit. Will they force people to hand them over?
Recall? (Score:2)
How dumb just issue a patch. Feh! Zombies. (Score:2)
This is dumb. Way dumb. But if the braindead judge is requiring a recall, why don't they just issue an OS patch via their own network or at shops? It doesn't make any sense in the world even for no-brains (oops zombies ate my brain) judge to order a physical recall for what is just a visual effect. That the effect is actually just a portrayal of how a spring works, which is why the whole physical gadget must be scrapped for what could be hundreds of millions of dollars is like really, really dumb. DUMB!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. Germany and other EPC signatories gave up their independent patent systems in 1977. However, EPC patents are enforced and/or revoked on a national basis.
Furthermore, software patents are allowed in Europe if they contain a "technical contribution" as opposed to performing a business task.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, pure software patents do not exist in Germany as well as the rest of the EU. However, computer implemented inventions are recognized as long as they contain a physical component. An ABS is the prime example of what this regulation was intended for.
The regulation provides a large enough loophole to patent any kind of software and the EU patent office is happy to exploit that. While you can't patent algorithm A, you can patent running algorithm A on a computer (physical device). Sadly, the Landgeri
Re: (Score:2)
It will eventually settle down to that. This happens over and over again any time there's a new frontier. The telephone, railroads, electricity, sewing machines, automobiles, revolvers, farm equipment, etc.
It starts with patent battles that at first seem reasonable that become more and more absurd over time. Once it begins it gathers its own momentum until there's no good way to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing--one born every minute!!! (Score:2)
And I still don't own an an Apple product.