3 ms·

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

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.
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      > [Apple is] better than this. They don't need to sully themselves with this cage-fighting behavior. I think the source is Steve Jobs’ pride, not rational business decisions. Jobs saw iPhone as something completely new, a smartphone that everyone could use – and the combination was something he felt he had invented. In the keynote where he announced iPhone, he went out of his way to point out that Apple has the multi-touch patents and that they filed for many more covering the gestures. By that time, Google had already purchased Android Inc, but it had no actual product. Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board so he knew about both projects. When Google did show an Android phone, it looked nothing like iPhone, with a hardware keyboard, no multi-touch, and an OS akin to Blackberry and Symbian. Apple obviously had no problem with that iteration, as Eric Schmidt remained on Apple’s board and Apple didn’t sue anyone. It wasn’t until Google changed Android in such a way that it was meant to be used with multi-touch when shit hit the fan. Eric Schmidt was suddenly a traitor, a spy, and Google became the enemy. That’s when Schnmidt was ousted from the board and the lawsuits targeting Android started. If Google had waited a year or two to make Android more iPhone-like, I believe Steve Jobs’ reaction would’ve been way less severe. And given that Nokia, Blackberry, and Microsoft (the mobile OS market leaders at the time) were asleep at the wheel, Google could’ve easily have competed in the market without stepping on Apple’s toes. Alternatively, Eric Schmidt could’ve left Apple’s board as soon as he knew Apple and Google were going to compete by both making a mobile OS. He must’ve known by 2006. He also knew what Jobs was like and could’ve seen this coming.

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.
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    > [Apple is] better than this. They don't need to sully themselves with this cage-fighting behavior. I think the source is Steve Jobs’ pride, not rational business decisions. Jobs saw iPhone as something completely new, a smartphone that everyone could use – and the combination was something he felt he had invented. In the keynote where he announced iPhone, he went out of his way to point out that Apple has the multi-touch patents and that they filed for many more covering the gestures. By that time, Google had already purchased Android Inc, but it had no actual product. Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board so he knew about both projects. When Google did show an Android phone, it looked nothing like iPhone, with a hardware keyboard, no multi-touch, and an OS akin to Blackberry and Symbian. Apple obviously had no problem with that iteration, as Eric Schmidt remained on Apple’s board and Apple didn’t sue anyone. It wasn’t until Google changed Android in such a way that it was meant to be used with multi-touch when shit hit the fan. Eric Schmidt was suddenly a traitor, a spy, and Google became the enemy. That’s when Schnmidt was ousted from the board and the lawsuits targeting Android started. If Google had waited a year or two to make Android more iPhone-like, I believe Steve Jobs’ reaction would’ve been way less severe. And given that Nokia, Blackberry, and Microsoft (the mobile OS market leaders at the time) were asleep at the wheel, Google could’ve easily have competed in the market without stepping on Apple’s toes. Alternatively, Eric Schmidt could’ve left Apple’s board as soon as he knew Apple and Google were going to compete by both making a mobile OS. He must’ve known by 2006. He also knew what Jobs was like and could’ve seen this coming.