5 ms·

I addressed it in a comment further down. From FOSS Patents: >A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility la

by IBM 13y ago

I addressed it in a comment further down. From FOSS Patents: >A few months after that Zeitgeist talk, in January 2012, Google authorized a Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Apple over six patents in the Southern District of Florida. The merger agreement was publicly available and absolutely unequivocal about the fact that Motorola needed Google's consent prior to bringing new IP assertions while the merger was under antitrust review. And Motorola was the first to sue Apple. I didn't find a wiki article about Microsoft and Motorola so I don't know who started it there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility_v._Apple_Inc.

WildUtah 13y ago
Apple sued Samsung, the world's largest maker of Android phones in dozens of countries, with masses of garbage patents in 2011[0]. Google provided the software that Apple was attacking, but was not considered to have standing to intervene. Instead, Google used its Motorola subsidiary to sue back with its own garbage patents and restore the MAD status quo. But Apple undoubtedly attacked first. Actually Microsoft was the First Evil, but Apple was first between Google, Google's licensed manufacturers (like Samsung and Motorola), and Apple. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electroni....
cromwellian 13y ago
The fallacy is looking at Motorola as an individual company and not as a member of the Android ecosystem. This is not about Apple vs Motorola, it is Apple vs Android. As Rockstar's suit shows, it's really Apple/Microsoft vs All_Android_Vendors. In that regard, Microsoft and Apple struck first.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  So what you’re saying is, Motorola sued Apple because Apple was being mean to Motorola’s friends? “In early October 2010, Motorola Mobility [which would later be bought by Google in August of 2011] filed a complaint with the ITC against Apple alleging patent infringement. The complaint allegations concerned six Motorola patents, and sought remedies of a court-ordered bar on U.S. imports of infringing products, and an injunction prohibiting Apple from importing, marketing and distributing infringing products.”
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    No, what I'm saying is, if you want to claim that Google is responsible for the 2012 Motorola suit (not the 2010 one), that is, Google is responsible for it and not Motorola management, than Google did it on behalf of the Android ecosystem as a whole. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Motorola is acting independently and carrying forward a battle that started prior to the Google acquisition, in which case, you have a false equivalence, or, Google is carrying out the attack, but if they are, then it is for Android as a whole, just as Google has attempted to assist other Android OEMS in past suits by asking the USPTO for re-examinations. To suggest that this isn't about iOS vs Android vs Windows Phone is ludicrous. Steve Jobs didn't scream "Motorola is a stolen product, I'm going thermonuclear on it", he say "Android is a stolen product..." Apple's suits against practically every Android vendor, from HTC to Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, ZTE, etc is obviously part of an ecosystem war Your suggestion is to act as if the USSR launched a missile at New York in the US, and Washington D.C. ordered California to launch a retaliatory strike, it can't possibly be because New York was attacked, and must be considered a First Strike!
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      Oh, I understand your point and I agree with it. It’s obviously about Android using features and designs that Apple (during Jobs’ reign) felt should be exclusive to them. My question is: why did pre-Google Motorola sue Apple, given that it hadn’t been sued by Apple?
      - cromwellian 13y ago
        My guess is, the usual reason why companies resort to patent attacks: They are going bankrupt or losing. Whether it's Kodak, or RIM, or Motorola, many companies, once their main business is on its last legs tend to turn into non-practicing entities who weaponize their patent portfolio. My guess is, Motorola was headed from bankruptcy before Google rescued them, Apple had deep pockets, so they became a target. The fact that Apple, the world's most successful company, is engaging in First Strikes, is somewhat odd. Usually it is the last refuge of a loser company searching for a way to tax competitors. Despite the fact that Android had majority market share, Apple is still increasing it's marketshare and raking in the profits, which is another reason why it irks me. It's like the winning football team beating up the losers after the game is over. Apple is winning, it is out-competing it's rivals. Does it really need to be engaging in morally gray legal moves? Microsoft, we expect it to, so it's no surprise, but Apple, of whom I have a love/hate relationship, I just wish they would act better. I love their products. They're better than this. They don't need to sully themselves with this cage-fighting behavior.

by IBM 13y ago

WildUtah 13y ago

Apple sued Samsung, the world's largest maker of Android phones in dozens of countries, with masses of garbage patents in 2011[0]. Google provided the software that Apple was attacking, but was not considered to have standing to intervene. Instead, Google used its Motorola subsidiary to sue back with its own garbage patents and restore the MAD status quo. But Apple undoubtedly attacked first. Actually Microsoft was the First Evil, but Apple was first between Google, Google's licensed manufacturers (like Samsung and Motorola), and Apple. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electroni....

cromwellian 13y ago

The fallacy is looking at Motorola as an individual company and not as a member of the Android ecosystem. This is not about Apple vs Motorola, it is Apple vs Android. As Rockstar's suit shows, it's really Apple/Microsoft vs All_Android_Vendors. In that regard, Microsoft and Apple struck first.

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
So what you’re saying is, Motorola sued Apple because Apple was being mean to Motorola’s friends? “In early October 2010, Motorola Mobility [which would later be bought by Google in August of 2011] filed a complaint with the ITC against Apple alleging patent infringement. The complaint allegations concerned six Motorola patents, and sought remedies of a court-ordered bar on U.S. imports of infringing products, and an injunction prohibiting Apple from importing, marketing and distributing infringing products.”
- cromwellian 13y ago
  No, what I'm saying is, if you want to claim that Google is responsible for the 2012 Motorola suit (not the 2010 one), that is, Google is responsible for it and not Motorola management, than Google did it on behalf of the Android ecosystem as a whole. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Motorola is acting independently and carrying forward a battle that started prior to the Google acquisition, in which case, you have a false equivalence, or, Google is carrying out the attack, but if they are, then it is for Android as a whole, just as Google has attempted to assist other Android OEMS in past suits by asking the USPTO for re-examinations. To suggest that this isn't about iOS vs Android vs Windows Phone is ludicrous. Steve Jobs didn't scream "Motorola is a stolen product, I'm going thermonuclear on it", he say "Android is a stolen product..." Apple's suits against practically every Android vendor, from HTC to Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, ZTE, etc is obviously part of an ecosystem war Your suggestion is to act as if the USSR launched a missile at New York in the US, and Washington D.C. ordered California to launch a retaliatory strike, it can't possibly be because New York was attacked, and must be considered a First Strike!
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    Oh, I understand your point and I agree with it. It’s obviously about Android using features and designs that Apple (during Jobs’ reign) felt should be exclusive to them. My question is: why did pre-Google Motorola sue Apple, given that it hadn’t been sued by Apple?
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      My guess is, the usual reason why companies resort to patent attacks: They are going bankrupt or losing. Whether it's Kodak, or RIM, or Motorola, many companies, once their main business is on its last legs tend to turn into non-practicing entities who weaponize their patent portfolio. My guess is, Motorola was headed from bankruptcy before Google rescued them, Apple had deep pockets, so they became a target. The fact that Apple, the world's most successful company, is engaging in First Strikes, is somewhat odd. Usually it is the last refuge of a loser company searching for a way to tax competitors. Despite the fact that Android had majority market share, Apple is still increasing it's marketshare and raking in the profits, which is another reason why it irks me. It's like the winning football team beating up the losers after the game is over. Apple is winning, it is out-competing it's rivals. Does it really need to be engaging in morally gray legal moves? Microsoft, we expect it to, so it's no surprise, but Apple, of whom I have a love/hate relationship, I just wish they would act better. I love their products. They're better than this. They don't need to sully themselves with this cage-fighting behavior.