Motorola Seeks Ban On Macs, iPads, and iPhones 446
bonch writes "Google-owned Motorola is asking the International Trade Commission to ban every Apple device that uses iMessage, based on a patent issued in 2006 for 'a system for providing continuity between messaging clients.' Motorola also claims that banning Macs and iPhones won't have an impact on U.S. consumers. They say, 'With so many participants in the highly competitive Wireless communication, portable music, and computer market, it is unlikely that consumers would experience much of an impact if the requested exclusion orders were obtained.' The ITC has yet to make a decision."
Google, Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop this bullshit and direct your lawyers to lobby to change the laws on software patents instead. Don't you think your money would be better spent on innovation?
Re:Google, Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Like who again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies like Apple feel like the only way to maintain is to stifle the competition not to keep innovating.
And yet now we find it is Google doing so, not Apple.
Both are equally guilty of bullshit.
Re:Like who again? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the consensus is that Google acquired Motorola largely for its patents so it could counter-sue Apple and anybody else who has been aggressively suing Android products as a more or less defensive measure. If Google won't show that it'll fight back, Apple and anybody else who wants to will sue Android, or Android manufacturers, into oblivion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spot the confirmation bias" When Apple sues on patent ground it's attack. When Google sues on patent grounds it's defense.
Sounds like any war, when acts of aggression and defense are interchangeable, depending on which side the opinion holder has taken.
Re:Like who again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like who again? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has been solidly proven that Apple copied every else on the iPhone, stop repeating the same lies over and over and over again. This is not an Apple political forum. The patents were bullshit and everybody knows it, simply a straight up delaying tactic to keep competing products out of the market for as long as possible. You are not seeing the counter business tactic, cripple Apple's access to the market to accelerate 'competing', read that. 'competing' products access to the market. It's all about consumer choice not some bullshit Apple monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
From Apple's point of view, copying the iPhone was an act of aggression.
Yeah, and copying the tablet from 2001: A Space Odyssey and ST:TNG was just innovation in action. Please fix your legal system.
Re:Like who again? (Score:4, Informative)
That's because it never got that far - the manufacturers to date simply caved in before it got to court.
OTOH, I can assure you that a metric ton of money is moving in Redmond's direction, and it makes Android just that less of a viable option (plus it forces the makers to make and sell the competing WP-loaded phones).
Here's the trick: Google doesn't need Apple to survive. They do however require the handset makers to keep using Android to make any money (at least in the mobile field). So who would you go after first - a competitor who took out a couple of models from one of your clients over look-and-feel (a design patent issue), or would you go after the guys who are raping the very makers that you need to continue using your products?
Put it this way: would you go after the fox who occasionally gets a chicken from one farm's henhouse, or try and do something about the locust swarm that's currently eating into all of the crops in the county?
Re:Like who again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like who again? (Score:4, Funny)
What would your response be to the bully on the playground? Bend over?
If the bully were Apple, many Apple fans like SuperKendall wouldn't think twice before bending over and taking it without even as much as asking for lube.
What? You are experiencing to much friction?
iFucking does not requier lube.
You are bending over wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I do find these homophobic analogies odd. Are people here really so limited with their descriptive abilities that this is the best we can come up with?
I'm Canuck. We used to have nothing but "Newfie" (Newfoundlanders) jokes going on around here. They disappeared and were replaced with "Polack" (Polish) jokes, then there were the Biafran, ... then I can't remember what came next.
Yes, it's all very stupid. "Homos" are just today's flavour/stars. Me, I prefer Russia's black humour. That's great stuff.
Re:Like who again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless Google fights back, Apple will topple them. Pacifism is neat in theory, but it won't get you far in the business world. Google is guilty of nothing but self defense. If Apple stops trying to get Motorola phones banned and Google continues, THEN you can say they are guilty.
Re:Not complaining about Google fighting back (Score:5, Interesting)
I just think it's bullshit to complain about Apple's abuse of patents because they seek to ban SOME devices from ONE manufacturer, while Google seeks to prevent the sale of EVERY Apple computer and iOS device.
I was expecting more knowledge and intelligence from a prolific Apple fan follower and poster. Maybe I was wrong.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-20-iphone-patents/ [engadget.com]
http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-sues-htc-again-iphone-maker-scared-android-smartphone-makers-210931 [ibtimes.com]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-motorola-over-xoom-design-report-says/ [cnet.com]
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/06/24/013245/apple-sues-htc-again-over-patents [slashdot.org]
Have you been sleeping under a rock or does facts not favorable to Apple just don't penetrate the thick RDF?
Re:Not complaining about Google fighting back (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I really meant to say successfully banned a few devices from one maker. None of those other things went anywhere.
Wait, so did Googorola successfully ban all Macs, iPhones and iPads according to the RTFA which is why you are getting so riled up about Google?
Not to mention that many of those Apple requests for injunctions are still pending and awaiting trials/judgements.
But that's being pedantic; fine, I'll say Apple is is attempting to ban every Android device form shipping just to make things easy.
So then, that puts them on parity with Google's level of evil.
Now can we complain about BOTH companies equally please an the patent law itself that enables this?
Sorry, no. Before Apple started suing the Android OEMs, there was a detente among them. Apple shot first, breaking the de facto peace between themselves and HTC/Samsung/Motorola.
If Microsoft sued Apple tomorrow over a kernel patent over iOS/OS X and Apple sued them back with 100 patents to retaliate because they think they might lose, you think they BOTH MS and Apple deserve equal blame because "the patent law itself enables this"?
Re:Not complaining about Google fighting back (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that's one of the risks if your company chooses to focus on creating and pushing absolutely identical clones of one product, instead of providing a range of devices with different options and hardware from competing manufacturers...it's an all the eggs = one basket kinda t'ing. If your device violates a patent...all your devices are likely to violate the same patent in the same way.
I don't understand your argument. Samsung has lots of products, not just absolutely identical clones of the iPhone and iPad.
Umm...sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm saying that Apple has a product line with absolutely no diversity allowed wherever possible, so naturally if their product violates one patent, the rest of their products are very likely to violate it as well. That's why Google can cry patent infringement across the entirety of the Appleverse, while Apple could only pick on a single product line from a particular manufacturer (more or less).
Re:Like who again? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am tired of this constant meme although I am not a big fan of Google.
What Google is doing is perfectly right from a moral, legal and commercial perspective. Apple started suing Android makers first(though Motorola beat them to the punch by a few weeks with a lawsuit and request for a declaration that it didn't infringe certain Apple patents after talks broke down). If Apple gets an injunction against Motorola for their silly patents over multitouch etc., Motorola will have to either stop selling handsets or pay $30 per phone which will kill their phones. Why should they not retaliate so that they have a chance of a negotiated settlement if that happens?
Also, big companies like Apple must be taught a lesson that if you start litigating, you should expect no mercy from the companies you're suing exploiting the exact same legal loopholes. If that's not done, other companies(except NPEs) will not think twice before suing competitors. Why should Google unilaterally disarm again? Just because they're your favorite company is for once on the receiving end of the same shit it is flinging all over everyone else? Motorola is not suing Samsung, HTC etc. here, but Apple is. Go figure out why
Re: (Score:3)
That's the offer they made Samsung [allthingsd.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking at the history of the companies, can you present a alternative that would allow Google to compete against Apple when Apple keeps stifling innovation through abusing the patent system? The last 5 years have been full of Apple abusing patents to stifle other companies.
Any in case, there motivation doesn't matter because this is win-win long term for the consumer.
The are successful, and a lot of people start looking at the patent system.
They loose, and future similar suits will be weaker.
Re:Like who again? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got some of your history wrong.
iPhone video chat (Facetime) was first available Feb 24th 2011.
Android video chat (Google Talk) came out in April 2011.
Both had video chat on PCs much earlier. Apple (iChat AV) in June 2003. Google didn't have it till 5 years later - Nov 11th 2008.
Multitasking the Android way isn't an innovation of theirs at all. Smartphones did that long before Android was even imagined. Multitasking the iOS way is an innovation though.
Quite prepared to give Android the credit for notifications though.
Re: (Score:3)
I had video chat on my Nokia N900 in 2010. Worked great too, integrated seamlessly into the OS. Even without skype there have been video conferencing standards around for a long time and implementing them on a mobile phone is obvious and hardly innovation.
So both you kids shut up before I bang your heads together.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, they've got a much more innovative rehashing of a 30 year old operating system than anyone else!
Re:Like who again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple does not want 3rd parties to build anything for their products... period. You can't even make a charger for an iPod without licensing the connector from them.
You're contradicting yourself. If Apple didn't want third parties to build anything for their products they wouldn't license the connector to them.
Re: (Score:3)
"Good artists copy, great artists steal. We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas" - Steve Jobs.
Actually, Pablo Picasso. Now think about this quote again.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike Jobs, Picasso never sued anyone. Jobs even stole Picasso's quote.
Re:Google, Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Google already working to limit software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is doing all of the following:
1) Lobbying against the existing software patent regime,
2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit, and
3) Using its existing patent portfolio against Apple so long as the existing patent regime is in place, and given that Apple started the patent war against Android.
Given the existing patent situation -- both the laws on the books and the way the federal courts apply them -- Google will be foolish not to aggressively use its patent portfolio against firms that are aggressively using their own portfolios against Google and Google partners, even while they are working to reshape the rules in a way which would eliminate or vastly reduce the opportunity for such warfare.
Re:Google already working to limit software patent (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to take away from anything you said, but Google also very secretly invested in Intellectual Ventures(yes that Intellectual Ventures that Slashdot hates, founded by Paul Allen), which unfortunately for them, came out in a court filing
http://gametimeip.com/2011/05/19/the-intellectual-ventures-investment-list-an-unwelcome-revelation/ [gametimeip.com]
Re:Google already working to limit software patent (Score:5, Informative)
Not to take away from anything you said, but Google also very secretly invested in Intellectual Ventures(yes that Intellectual Ventures that Slashdot hates, founded by Paul Allen), which unfortunately for them, came out in a court filing
You didn't link the original source. Unfortunately for you I found it [patentlyo.com].
For the most part, these tech companies appear to have invested in intellectual ventures as part of a licensing agreement. ... Google ...
I wouldn't call a licensing agreement "very secretly invested". There's a list of the real investors too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know the situation is complicated, and I'm glad that (it sounds like) Google is doing something. The whole thing is just incredibly frustrating, and given that I want to start a business some day (possibly soon) and that the situation for a bit player is much grimmer if you happen to implement the wrong feature that's listed among the thousands of active patents in existence, I can't help but be a little angry about the whole thing. Were software patents not being granted, we could be years ahead
Re: (Score:3)
Bully punches you in the face, is not the same thing as responding in kind. Trust me, bullies use people like you to cry "foul" when the shit they do to everyone else comes back to them in a bad way.
It is the "don't mess with me, I wont' mess with you. But, if you mess with me, I'm gonna fuck you up in ways you can't imagine. Peace"
Re:Google already working to limit software patent (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is you think Apple 'defected'/shot first.
Apple thinks Google/Samsung 'defected'/shot first.
So who's actually right?
Google and Samsung. The sequence of the court filings is pretty clear.
Doesn't fit so nicely now, does it?
Your question? No, it doesn't. This thread is about who initiated the regulatory monopoly court proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you think of a better way to lobby to get the laws changed than to ban all Apple products?
What goes around comes around... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good to see Apple getting patent trolled. Sorry to all of the Apple fans out there but I hate today's Apple more than I hated '90s Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:What goes around comes around... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but they fired the first shot, now they are going to get hit by everything the other teams can find.
Re:What goes around comes around... (Score:5, Informative)
Nokia fired first and Apple paid $600 million and something $20 a hand set on going
Depends how far you want to go back though.
Apple sued MS back in the eighties over look and feel and didn't win that.
Samsung sued LG last month, but it hardly got reported. There are no saints and angels here
http://www.devicemag.com/2012/09/11/samsung-sues-lg-for-alleged-oled-technology-theft/ [devicemag.com]
Re:What goes around comes around... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that Samsung thing is about actual technology theft. As in, literally stealing technology from Samsung (via ex-employees).
Apple, on the other hand, sued over rounded corners and icons in a grid. (You know, something my Samsung phone used in 2005. Long before the iPhone was released.)
This is, yet again, about actual technology, and not rounded corners. From the patent brief it sounds kind of silly (it sounds like they're talking about being logged into a chat with the same account via multiple clients), but it's still actual technology and not just "we arranged icons that contain rounded corners in a grid and so did they." It's hardly the same thing as Apple is doing.
I don't think anyone can out-evil Apple in this patent war. Apple hasn't invented a damned thing in the mobile space, but they've managed to patent the ridiculous since they're unable to compete on actual merit.
Samsung suing a competitor over allegedly poaching employees to steal trade secrets isn't quite the same thing.
Apple v. HTC, Apple v. Samsung, ... (Score:2)
Actually, they did; they fired at Android device manufacturers. The major ones were HTC and then Samsung. While with Apple the hardware and software pieces of the ecosystem are all in the same company, with Android the handset manufacturers and the mobile OS developer are separate companies (but they depend on each other with regard to the success of Android products).
Re:What goes around comes around... (Score:4, Insightful)
Until software patents are simply gone ... then this would be the correct response, I think. "Okay, Apple, if you want to start suing based on these silly patents, we'll sue you, too."
Who started it *does* matter. Bully picks a fight in school? I would not stand there and be beaten to pulp. I would fight back. It *does* matter who started it, because actions based on unprovoked aggression vs. those same actions in self defense are significantly different.
Re: (Score:2)
And Nokia started it...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What goes around comes around... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple INVENTED Swipe to Unlock (or at least patented it first) it was a big deal when it first came out..
Funny, I've had this gizmo on my garden gate that I swipe to unlock. It's been there for decades.
Patented != invented, as any idiot who has been paying attention to what the PTO has been selling* would know.
*The PTO finances itself with fees, not tax money. It collects more when it issues a patent than when it doesn't. There's no money-back guarantee that the patent will stand up in court -- but usual
Why not (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
While I support your platform, and you have my vote for president, I'd first like to see all existing apple products seized and shredded in front of their owners, just to see the sweet, sweet tears.
Oh, and jail time for doing anything "ironically".
Re: (Score:3)
Yay! Obese, contact lens wearing owners of Android unite!
Right back at you Apple. (Score:2, Insightful)
HAHAHHA.
That's a great retort to Apples actions. IT's what Apple has asked for in theitr lawsuit(to shut down everyone else), and as a side note, I suspect this would change patent law.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this different? If the courts rule that iMessage does actually violate this patent... then wouldn't all of those devices you listed, in fact, violate it? Just as Apple was seeking injunctions against Samsung devices that they claimed infringed.
Re:This is the patent you all claimed to hate (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's "Patent" was actually a design patent, all about the whole look and feel. Apple only sued one company over it. And yet the Apple suit spawned countless discussions about the evils of software patents in general and Apple's use of them to destroy the whole market.
Do you have ANY clue of what you're spouting here? Hard to believe you're that ignorant, I am starting to think you're not an Apple fan but a troll at this point.
Pray, tell us which of these are design patents? And why are they suing HTC? Also, I am ignoring all the tens of court cases they have filed with things like multitouch, slide to unlock etc. etc. Not to mention they won on multitouch and the scrolling patent in the Samsung case, how are they design patents? What are you smoking?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/ [engadget.com]
Patent #7,362,331: Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States
This is an interface patent granted in 2008 -- it's not specifically related to phones. According to the claims, it's a method of moving a GUI object along a path with a non-constant velocity for a period of time -- one of the claims specifically covers minimizing windows with a scaling effect like OS X, and two others describe a row of icons that rearranges itself when icons are added or removed, just like the iPhone's app dock.
Patent #7,479,949: Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics
We did this one at length after it was issued in January of last year -- check out our Palm discussion for more. The big one here is scroll behavior: starting a scroll in a single direction locks you in that direction, but starting it at an angle lets you pan around freely -- just like the Android browser.
Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image
This one's cute 'cause it's brand new -- seriously, it was just granted on February 2. It's almost exactly what it says on the tin: it covers unlocking a touchscreen device by moving an unlock image. It's broad enough for us to say that it covers virtually every unlock behavior we've seen on phones, not just the iPhone's slide-to-unlock implementation.
Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display
Yep, we covered this 2008 patent in our Palm piece too -- well remembered, friends. Jump back to that for the full details, but the executive summary is that it covers the iPhone's distinctive scroll-back-and-bounce behavior.
Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device
Granted in 1999, this patent is surprisingly broad -- it flatly covers managing power in a digital camera device to a power manager that sends state information to a processor controlling the camera.
Patent #7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices
This was issued in October of 2009, and it's really quite specific: it covers a phone with multitouch input, a proximity sensor, and an ambient light sensor, which allows input when the sensors indicate one condition and doesn't allow input in others. In simple terms? It's how the iPhone shuts off the touchscreen when you hold it to your ear, a scenario that's specifically called out in the claims.
Patent #5,848,105: GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality
The year was 1998, and times were lean in Cupertino. Steve Jobs had just returned to Apple, and although the company's fortunes were turning with the introduction of the iMac, it was clear that a true breakout was needed. "We have the answer!" cried William A. Garnder and Stephan V. Schell, two of the company's employees. "We'll develop an an apparatus
Re: (Score:3)
That's how you do it. You kill one of us, we kill 5 of yours. If you're gonna do a mob, er, patent war do it right!
Re: (Score:3)
Soon,... very soon... (Score:4, Insightful)
the whole patent system is going to come crashing down. The way these companies are going, it will not take much longer before people start realizing the current system is no longer viable. Maybe a decade or so, but not much more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Soon,... very soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
I humbly submit a correction. All the FAT PIGS with huge moneybags for legal combat will tend to end at a standoff, but all the garage innovators will be shit out of luck. That is not a desirable outlook for the economy. Small and micro business is the lifeblood of an economy, and represents the hopes and dreams of the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's position -- even before Apple started filing the lawsuits against Android manufacturers that were the opening shot in the Apple-Google patent war -- was that the current patent regime, particularly in regards to software patents, was harmful to innovation and unmaintainable.
OTOH, Google -- as they are trying to run a business that has to operate in the real world -- d
Re: (Score:3)
The Patent system is Federal. Good luck making that a talking point for candidates for Congress or President. They will snear at it and say they are going to focus on "jobs" or "national security" or how evil the other guy is. Completely ignoring how the patent system is costing us jobs and the eventual demise of small/medium businesses in America.
Who needs day time TV? (Score:4, Funny)
Karma... (Score:4, Interesting)
Karma is a bitch.... isn't it Apple?
How you like a taste of your own medicine?
Re:Karma... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Karma can only be portioned out by the universe - Home Simpson.
Pledge to Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
Please Mr. Obama, when you are re-elected, please make all software patents invalid because they clearly don't work.
Up to Congress to change the law (Score:3)
I call bullshit on Ars Technica (Score:5, Informative)
If this was "made public" today, why is there so [androidauthority.com] many [eweek.com] articles [appleinsider.com] from August 20th, when it was submitted? This is total bullshit, posted by Ars, just to try and get publicity with the iPhone 5 release tomorrow.
And for the record, I am not an Apple apologist, and I own a Galaxy S3. But I mean, bullshit is bullshit.
Apple asked for it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Actually Nokia did.
IMAP Is Prior Art (Score:3)
Really, not just IMAP... the whole notion that you might see the same messages everywhere is blazingly obvious once you have the concept of networked computing in the first place.
but at the very least, IMAP should invalidate
Game on.. (Score:3)
Perhaps Apple will see sense and start to realise that it didn't invent the smartphone. The ideal solution is for everyone to stop suing everyone else and for fair licensing of real patents and an end to patenting the bleeding obvious. But somehow I feel that isn't gonna happen..
Oh good... (Score:2)
Global software patent mutual annihilation. And here I thought we had a few decades before 2077....
So much for don't be evil (Score:2, Troll)
Even if you believed the patent was valid, then banning Macs? Instead of telling them to delete Messages?
I think the Don't Be Evil is long gone, lost in parts from the Google Plus push, the cozying up to carriers where Apple dared to push back.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't Be Evil never existed.
Remember Google history. Google needed a CEO, and who did they want? Steve Jobs. Yes, Jobs. Naturally, though, Jobs was involved heavily with Apple and decided it wouldn't be possible.
Instead, what Jobs did was take the Google founders under his wing and teach them about how to be leaders. (Of course, when Google released Android, Jobs felt ba
There is only one thing left to do... (Score:5, Funny)
Both sides arm their lawyers with axes, maces, and bows. Meet on the field of battle. HAVE AT THEE! Televised of course with the proceeds going to the "iPhones for Orphans" or "Andriods for Amputees". No armor allowed, only 3 piece suits.
To the winner goes the spoils!
Nothing Personal (Score:2)
It's the way business is done, nowadays. It's nothing personal.
The Beauty of this Attack (Score:4, Interesting)
Motorola is saying, "Either Apple has such a stranglehold on consumer choice that to remove them is to remove the market, proving that they must be in an anti-competitive position OR removing them from the market wouldn't hurt the market because there are enough viable alternatives so don't judge this based on whether banning iDevices would harm consumers."
I think that's a beautiful argument and I can't wait to see how the court weasels out of the proposed dilemma.
It's actually total nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
However, it is obvious that it's not a device connecting to the communication server, but a user. And the user just temporarily uses some device, and tells the communication server which device that is, but can obviously at any point in time tell the communication server that they are now using a different device. Totally obvious.
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is becoming MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Maybe that's the point. Maybe Motorolla is trying to teach Apple how to play Tic-Tac-Toe. Number of players: 0
Re: (Score:2)
This is all great news, because this means the war will be over sooner than later! Reconstruction always has more opportunities and innovation anyway, so I for one am cheering this on!
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If by "don't play" you mean "don't get any patents," that will get you sued out of business.
If, instead, you mean "don't get into the business of making consumer electronics," then yeah, you're pretty much right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Friendly advice, if you want to be able to retain your geek card, you'd better be able to recognize any major quote from Wargames.
What makes you think GP didn't realize the quote was from Wargames? Movie quotes are only clever though if they have some pertinence to the issue at hand, which in this case is MAD as applied to patent portfolios. In this game, there really is no winning move, which is his point.
Of course, this goes to show how ridiculous the original quote was, too. If by "don't play" they meant "don't stockpile nuclear weapons", the result would be the same as here: one country would cease to exist.
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, this goes to show how ridiculous the original quote was, too. If by "don't play" they meant "don't stockpile nuclear weapons" ...
Erm, no, the game was Global Thermonuclear War. Only fools and psychopaths, or suicidals, play that game.
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:4, Funny)
David Lightman: Umm... Your wife?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Were there any other major quotes? That's the only memorable line I got out of that movie (though it's been a while since I've watched it)
Are you kidding me?!?
JOSHUA: How. ah-bout. a-nice. game. of chess?
DAVID: Maybe....later....now...let's....play....global....thermo...nuclear....war.
DAVID: Is...this...a...game...or...is...it...real...?
JOSHUA: What's the difference?
Dad: [painful crunch] ...This corn is raw!
Mom: I know! Isn't it wonderful? It's so crisp!
Dad: Of course it's crisp-- it's RAW!!
Falken: Path - follow path. Gate
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:4, Funny)
Lets see
apple strikes first winner = NONE
MS strikes first winner = NONE
Google strikes first winner = NONE
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say it's more of a way to get Apple to lay off suing Android device manufacturers for patent violation. If you have enough ammo in your patent war chest, no one's going to take pot shots at you. Certainly worked for IBM, anyways.
I don't know if this move is at least in a little part an attempt to get Apple to back off on suing Samsung (is that bit about an Apple device ban not effecting US consumers lifted from Apple v Samsung comments?), but it might do so anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Sammy actually got slammed more by software patents (pinch to zoom, double tap to zoom, overscroll bounce, slide to unlock) than by design patents in the most recent round.
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Apple made the case that this was all a part of their trade dress, and their design patents are meant to protect their trade dress so they were a very integral part of the case. The way Samsung spins it, you'd think the case was all about rounded rectangles.
Re: (Score:3)
All things I've listed are functionality patents, not design patents. There's no way they can be a part of their trade dress. And this is the first time I've heard anyone say that they claimed to be.
Note that I didn't even mention rounded rectangles.
Re:Of course they won't.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Christ, can't we just start shooting all the lawyers and get this over with? The whole thing is an increasingly mad dash to innovation armageddon. I think no patent system at all would be better than the absurdities of this.
Re: (Score:3)
Christ, can't we just start shooting all the lawyers and get this over with?
I'm afraid not. See, lawyers are humans, so you're talking homocide. I sympathise with your frustration, but there actually are good/decent lawyers out there (NewYorkCountyLawyer, I'm lookin' at you).
Besides, the usual way to go about it is not shooting them. It's "... ten thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean."
I suggest just making popcorn and enjoying the show, or doing something that will fix US tort law. Chyaa, right.
Re: (Score:3)
Christ, can't we just start shooting all the lawyers and get this over with? The whole thing is an increasingly mad dash to innovation armageddon. I think no patent system at all would be better than the absurdities of this.
Lawyers are the symptom, not the cause.
Shoot the MBA's who decide suing over patents is a good business model. And make sure you aim for the head even though they'll live for 9 days without it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Please check your Apple RDF generator I don't think it's working properly.
MotoTroll-uh (Score:2)
I go back to the first dispute settlement... Build a man a fire, they're warm for a night. Set a man on fire, they're warm for the rest of their life. which are you after, MotoTrolls?
Re:Moto can lock them out of a big part of the cab (Score:5, Informative)
No, they can't. The patents in question with cable are FRAND, so at most, Apple might be forced to pay a small tithe.
Google has not hesitated to sue and try to get injunctions based on FRAND patents in the past, unlike Apple.
[citation needed]
And remember, that's Google we're looking for a citation on, not Motorola Mobility from times before Google bought them. Some of us DO have long-term memories longer than the last Apple product announcement and remember that Google has not owned Motorola Mobility for long at all, which is why we're confused and want clarification.
Re:Moto can lock them out of a big part of the cab (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't let you introduce your technology in to a standard like this unless you agree to make it available to everyone. Perhaps in the future, IEEE should require people to turn over their patents as a condition for inclusion in order to prevent this kind of nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not Equivalent (Score:4, Insightful)
They are absolutely *not* trying to stop all Android devices.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but ol' Steve really wanted to.
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong."
Seems to me Apple basically want to own the "x" on a touch screen device space, and would greatly prefer if other phone makers stuck to dumbphones, permanently.