



I. iPad, iPhone Ban Would be Illegal Says Appeals Court





Apple store in Germany



A translated ruling is available here.

II. Growing Headaches for Motorola, Google



Cell tower
[Image Source: Trak]


III. Battle is Far From Over



Motorola unlock
Motorola's forbidden swipe to unlock gesture [Image Source: YouTube]




Sources: FOSS Patents [1], [2]

Comments     Threshold


By JPForums on 2/28/2012 1:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is a little disingenuous. You state 'someone else came up with' as if that is a matter of fact. Even if that is what you believe, it isn't necessarily what Apple believes.

Sorry I wasn't more clear with that. Let me correct that: I still take issue with Apple submitting patent proposals on something that in my opinion someone else came up with, and furthermore, already has patents on it. Though to be fair, the existing patents are fact and the technical differences weren't enough win them a previous case. So I'm not entirely alone in that opinion.

I think 'Every company does it' is a compelling argument. You have to bear in mind that companies are not human entities - they do not necessarily adhere to 'morals' except where doing so increases profit. It is almost their duty to maximise the income from their intellectual property such as patents, and they have to work off the assumption that their competitors will do the same - legally, of course.

I hadn't really though of it that way, so I'll have to think it over some. Though, I'm guessing avoiding (too much) bad PR would be a reason to adhere to 'morals'.

Your claim of a 'short term' aim when referring to a patent filed 7 years ago with no knowledge of what would happen in subsequent years would appear contradictory

In this context I (apparently incorrectly) thought it would be clear that I was talking about the current usage of said patent. Also, the only thing I said was short term was the damages. Even if Apple's legal department and I disagree on the validity of the patent, I don't think they'd disagree that this patent is not as strong than many of their other patents. They know better than me their chances of winning and that the competition will work around it if they do win. Hence, my usage of the term "short term damage".

all the companies in question can handle the legal costs since they have in-house legal teams anyway, and no actual damage has been done yet.

Injunctions are damaging. Even if compensated monetarily, mind/market share loss is still a concern. Whether Apple's injunctions are successful or not has no bearing on their intent to get them. Of course, they are well within their legal rights to do so.

What Apple is doing, arguably, is allowing their own patent every chance to realize its full value.

Absolutely. They probably wouldn't litigate if there was no chance at winning. The question is at what point does Apple decide the chances are too low to justify the cost. My guess is that their ability to get injunctions has some bearing on this.

Apple feel a little aggrieved that everyone else duplicated what they believed was a protected idea.

Good point.

Regarding the Motorola FRAND issues, I believe we're mostly on the same page.

Thanks for the logical discussion.

