8 ms·
Motorola wins patent suit against Apple in Germany, iPhone/iPad to be banned
- MrKurtHaeusler 15y agoSaw a chick on the train today with book 12 on patent law (can't remember if it was Germant or EU). It was about 7 cm thick, and the pages were real thin. Bureaucrats (the EU fuckers don't even pay tax), lawyers and politicians are just taking the piss now. I sure hope that is what the 99% are fighting against, and not the right for businesses and individuals to trade freely amongst themselves. It is a wonder anything related to commerce can happen at all in well Germany at least
- mckn 15y agoApple is staying in Germany in my opinion. I could not see otherwise.
- AndrewDucker 15y agoIt does feel that Apple is reaping the whirlwind here. For a long time the major players have all held loaded guns pointed at each other's heads, with nobody willing to fire a shot because they knew it would be more trouble than it was worth. And then Apple decided to take the first shot. The big question now, is whether the politicians will let this drag out, costing everyone a fortune, or step in and call an end to it by changing the patent system.
- fleitz 15y agoI think German politicians have bigger issues to worry about right now than a patent dispute between Apple and Motorola, something about Greece, Italy, and Spain. This court case is just a proxy war fought by Motorola as a client company of Google.
- pyre 15y agoSo... Motorola was only fighting this on Google's behalf (prior to the purchase)? They were fighting this because it was in their own best interests. Just because their interests align with Google's doesn't make it a 'proxy war.'
- fleitz 15y agoIt's usually in the proxies interest to fight the war anyway. Vietnam was a proxy war for the US even though Vietnam was fighting it long before the US got involved. Google gets to fuck with Apple and if they lose they just roll up the company with out exposing the real profits to judgement. Moto bears the risk, Google reaps the rewards, classic proxy war. Either way I don't think German politicians are ready to intervene.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoThe politicians don't need to do anything, at least not in response to this specifically. If it's as bad as you say (and it's not, this is one ruling in one case and not a final one) then the companies will simply stop and put down their guns. They're not run by stupid people, when the cost of legal actions and settlements outweighs the possible benefits, they'll revert to the previous position - only the most outrageous violations will be followed up. This specific situation - the recent upsurge in actions (but NOT the more general issues with patent) is something that the market can sort out. The real problem with patents isn't multibillion dollar companies slugging it out, they've got the legal muscle and licensing budgets to be OK, it's with the small players who can't or won't develop products out of fear that they're going to violate some patent they're not even aware of owned by some multi-billion dollar organisation who'll squash them without thinking.
- stanleydrew 15y ago"The market" will only sort this out properly if it is efficient. There's too much uncertainty for that to be the case. Put another way, how is a company supposed to come up with an accurate expected value of suing/defending? There are so many unknown factors that have significant impact on the outcome. Eventually, once a lot of those unknowns become accurately estimable, then yes the market can solve these problems. But there's a giant cost associated with waiting around for that.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoHow is that more uncertain than anything in business? How many will my product sell? How fast? What's going to happen to materials prices? What are my competitors going to do? By that logic the market couldn't work for 98% of products. Legal action I'd suggest is certainly no harder to predict than that and probably easier.
- dantheman 15y agoPatents are anti-freemarket - they are restrictions on what one can actually do to their own property. They are government granted monopolies, that's about as anti-freemarket as you can get.
- ajross 15y agoI'm enjoying the schadenfreude too, but no: I think that's the wrong way to look at this. That Apple "shot first" doesn't make Motorola's suit any less bogus. If anything we're closer to a sane resolution now just because of the court mess in Europe. The goal here has to be achieving a sane and stable status quo for "obvious" IP law in consumer hardware; not punishing Apple for being jerks about things and upsetting the previous status quo.
- AndrewDucker 15y agoOh, I don't like this outcome. I'd like to get rid of software patents entirely, and limit the time period and scope of hardware patents a lot more.
- sjs 15y agoMy guess is that many politicians just see this as the system working.
- ellyagg 15y agoWhat on earth are you talking about? Nokia sued Apple first after it became clear they weren't going to be able to compete with the things Apple was doing. Nokia was able to successfully extort money from Apple. Apple was taught that this is how you play the game. If people want the system to change, they need to lobby for it, but please remember your history. Apple didn't start this and everyone is doing it. Who is playing offense and who is playing defense depends on how well you remember the timeline and which "team" you side with.
- stanleydrew 15y agoDo you have a reference for that? I can't remember who was first anymore but I did seem to think it was Apple.
- ellyagg 15y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896889 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896889
- ceol 15y ago>Apple was taught that this is how you play the game. This implies that Apple was some naive child entering the Big Bad World of Business. I doubt they were unaware of how to play the game.
- Tuna-Fish 15y ago>What on earth are you talking about? Nokia sued Apple first after it became clear they weren't going to be able to compete with the things Apple was doing. That's not exactly how it happened -- every other major player pays Nokia licensing fees. Apple refused to purchase a license on the terms Nokia offered (mostly, Nokia wanted a cross-licensing agreement for Apple UI patents. Nokia actually cares about patents, and tries to not infringe on them.), so Nokia sued them to force it.
- ghshephard 15y ago" Who is playing offense and who is playing defense depends on how well you remember the timeline and which "team" you side with." At this level - All the major players try and license on FRAND terms first and foremost - limits your risk, and keeps your legal bills down - but Nokia was asking for more than Apple was willing to play - so they go to court. All the players are looking at this from a Game Theoretic position, and, at the end of the day, Patent holders _have_ to send some of their negotiations to court, if only to make it clear their FRAND values would be held up. Apple is somewhat unique, in that they aren't as keen on getting license value for their patents as their competitors are - and, FRAND values on a design patent is a lot more "mushy" than a radio chip function.
- funkah 15y agoWell, would you rather see companies in this market stop doing this pointless crap, or see Apple suffer? The answer to this question will dictate whether you think this turn of events is a good thing or not.
- untog 15y agoThe article title is inaccuarate. To quote the body: "which could see an injunction placed on iPhones and iPads." I would bet money on the iPhone/iPad not being banned. How many times have we seen this now? Product gets 'banned', company appeals, ban is lifted. World continues to turn.
- shadowfiend 15y agoPlus they usually get a stay during the appeal anyway, so the ban is never actually effected.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoThe other thing is that in Germany if you enforce an injunction and it's later overturned, you're liable for damages. So the question might be how confident are Motorola that they might want to line them up for damages equating to iPhone / iPad Christmas sales? As ever Florian Mueller is better on this than most of the regular news sources. http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/12/motorola-mobility-wins-german-patent.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/12/motorola-mobility-wi...
- yason 15y agoIt's nice to see Apple getting slammed against their cheeks as well, but in general this just points out how degenerate computer business has become. And that's a lot sadder than Apple's karmic rebound.
- thurn 15y agoThis is just as bad for users as Apple's own patent shenanigans. Nobody "wins" these things but the lawyers.
- calloc 15y agoWhy are patents related to a wireless standard that one is required to use to interoperate with the networks not available for licensing? How in the world is anyone supposed to even develop a cellular modem without infringing on these patents? Isn't there some licensing body like the one for MPEG that you can go to and get a blanket license to all of the tech?
- eridius 15y agoAs I understand it, Apple believes Motorola should be required to license these patents under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discrimanatory) terms due to their importance in a fundamental standard. It even said this in the article: > Apple tried to license the patent under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms but Motorola was again able to convince the court that if Apple was judged to have infringed, the damages involved would total more than the FRAND rates that were suggested. What I don't understand, however, is Motorola's argument. If Motorola was supposed to have licensed this patent under FRAND terms to begin with, then why does it possibly matter how much the "damages involved" total?
- azylman 15y agoArs Technica (http://bit.ly/rxK9jR http://bit.ly/rxK9jR) has much clearer coverage of this article than TheNextWeb does: "Motorola approached Apple in 2007, after the launch of the original iPhone, to license this and other standards essential patents for FRAND terms. "We have been negotiating with Apple and offering them reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007," Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, said in a statement e-mailed to Ars. Apple apparently didn't consider the terms very fair...Apple apparently made an offer to license the patent on FRAND terms going forward. But the matter was complicated by the fact that Apple's agreement included a clause that would allow it to try and have the patent invalidated if Motorola tried to seek damages for past infringement over and above the agreed FRAND rate." Basically, Motorola offered it on FRAND terms, Apple rejected it, and came back with a new offer that was on FRAND terms but with the corollary that if Motorola tried to sue Apple for any infringement they had already done their patent would be invalid.
- 15y ago
- mchanson 15y agoI wonder what the "tax" on products I buy from Apple or Google's partners are by all these shenagens are. Do I pay $.10, $1, $10 of my iPad 2 price to help fund all this nonsense?
- atirip 15y agoOne man, one company, one device in Germany? Remember those Vic Gundotra shot's at Google I/O ? "Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice.” “Not The Future We Want.” Now, when Motorola (Google) succesfully banned iPhones in Germany, someone should ask Vic, what is he gonna do about it. If Vic stands behind his words and is not a whiny-shitty-marketing-puppy, I expect Google to do something. And soon.
- patrickaljord 15y agoMotorola doesn't belong to Google yet, the acquisition hasn't been approved yet so there is not much Vic could do. Second, didn't Motorola sue Apple as a defensive move because Apple was suing them? In that case, do you suggest Motorola should stay idle and let Apple sue them and ban their products? In what world would a company allow that?
- jfasi 15y agoI presume that by Motorola they mean to say Google, right?
- scottmp10 15y agoThe Motorola acquisition has not been approved yet. And I believe they are actually prohibited from coordinating efforts until that happens.
- jfasi 15y agoI presume that by Motorola they mean to say Google, right?
- libraryatnight 15y agoIt seems like competing for sales is old hat, now the strategy is to throw patent tantrums. This just comes off as a bummer for the consumer.
- Tichy 15y agoI should be happy, but I rather wish all the patent nonsense would go away. It makes everyone involved look bad.
- billpatrianakos 15y agoLove them or hate them, this ruling isn't exactly a good thing for anyone except Motorola. This one ruling, even if Apple loses appeal too, won't change the way Apple operates. This will only hurt consumers in Germany. Like it or not, people love the iPhone and iPad and there's a huge number of people who would prefer those products over anything else. Poor German consumers. You can say the same for Samsung in the US too and I'd agree (but I would also say far less people would shed a tear for not being able to buy a Samsung phone or tablet. My opinions are just that, however, opinions)
- Steko 15y agoPernicious falsehoods in HN mobile IP discussions: (1) Apple is the only company that sues anyone. (2) Apple was the first company to start suing. (3) Whatever negative happens to Apple: well they deserve it for being meanies. (4) Whatever negative happens to Android: miscarriage of justice that just shows how broken the system is.
- jmags 15y agoI have to say that reading HN does not give me the impression that its posters tend to be anti-Apple.
- Steko 15y agoNot really what I was saying. What I'm saying is that the same zombie falsehoods are repeated in every thread. Even worse, falsehoods are rewarded with upvotes because, more and more, bias trumps accuracy. It becomes tiresome to correct them over and over again only to see that once again the highest voted comment is based on the falsehood that "Apple is reaping the whirlwind" because "they [took] the first shot." And inasmuch as you can generalize about a diverse community it's not a great leap to go from the observation that these factually inaccurate comments are often the highest upvoted to say that when it comes to IP Apple is commonly treated here as the big bad. This is despite the facts that: (1) Apple is consistently the most innovative company and IP is supposed to incent and reward innovation. (2) Apple has paid out more for patent infringement then all their innocent lamb competitors (put together?).
- nitrogen 15y agoApple is consistently the most innovative company What does that even mean? You've got three unprovable terms in there: consistently (What does it mean to be consistently innovative? Wouldn't Apple's copying of Android's notifications system contradict this?), most (What metric are you using to measure innovation that gives the highest number to Apple?), and innovative (How do you define innovation in this context? Patents filed (bogus)? Profit margins (not correlated)? Intensity of reality distortion? Lines of code?).
- zyce 15y agoSensationalist title, inaccurate and begging for extra clicks. I'm not surprised to see this from a journalist, nor am I surprised to see this from Nokia. Nokia's offerings have been near non-existent since they moved from Symbian to WP7 development. If anything, this is a plus for Microsoft, who I'm sure would've been happy to fund this (if they did not).
- betterth 15y agoLet me guess: Motorola abusing a patent for an underlying radio standard and preventing Apple from using standardized radio technology: Totally legit. Apple complaining about design and UI elements? APPLE IS THE MOST EVIL, LITIGIOUS COMPANY IN THE WORLD. This kills me every time. Can't wait for the next round of lawsuits against Apple, in which disingenuous tech companies sue Apple with patents they bought wholesale off a patent troll or shifted around amongst themselves as if they were nothing more than useful assets in a political game. It makes it all that more hilarious when Apple sues using patents with Steve Jobs name on it. One has to wonder how many CEO's at those other companies have their names on the patents they're suing over. Or if their companies even had anything to do with the innovation the patent protects...
- azylman 15y agoArs Technica (http://bit.ly/rxK9jR http://bit.ly/rxK9jR) has much clearer coverage of this article than TheNextWeb does: "Motorola approached Apple in 2007, after the launch of the original iPhone, to license this and other standards essential patents for FRAND terms. "We have been negotiating with Apple and offering them reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007," Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, said in a statement e-mailed to Ars. Apple apparently didn't consider the terms very fair...Apple apparently made an offer to license the patent on FRAND terms going forward. But the matter was complicated by the fact that Apple's agreement included a clause that would allow it to try and have the patent invalidated if Motorola tried to seek damages for past infringement over and above the agreed FRAND rate." Basically, Motorola offered it on FRAND terms, Apple rejected it, and came back with a new offer that was on FRAND terms but with the corollary that if Motorola tried to sue Apple for any infringement they had already done their patent would be invalid.
- drewda 15y agoHere's a cute, interactive visualization of these lawsuits: http://bl.ocks.org/1153292 http://bl.ocks.org/1153292 (might be a few months out of date)