Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Nov 2011 00:46 UTC
Legal Why oh why does big news always break when I'm already in bed? This is a big one, guys: Motorola has been granted an injunction in Germany against Apple, which, as far as we can tell right now, covers Apple's entire portfolio of mobile products. Motorola can enforce this injunction, barring all of Apple's mobile products from the German market. In addition, Apple has to pay Motorola damages from 2003 and onwards. Update: Apple has responded (see Engadget article linked to above): "This is a procedural issue, and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It does not affect our ability to sell products or do business in Germany at this time." At this time huh? Huh.
Order by: Score:
Comment by frderi
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:07 UTC
frderi
Member since:
2011-06-17


In addition, Apple has to pay Motorola damages from 2003 and onwards.


From the parent : Additionally, Apple may have to pay damages to Motorola dating back to 2010.

Might be worthwhile to correct your typo ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by frderi
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by frderi"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Engadget is wrong. Legal doc says April 19, 2003.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Comment by frderi
by jackeebleu on Sat 5th Nov 2011 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by frderi"
RE[3]: Comment by frderi
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Nov 2011 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by frderi"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

All of which is in the article, except for Apple's statement since that came out when I was in bed.

So.... I'm struggling to see the point in your attack on me.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: Comment by frderi
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by frderi"
RE[3]: Comment by frderi
by HappyGod on Mon 7th Nov 2011 03:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by frderi"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

RTFA

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by frderi
by Doc Pain on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by frderi"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Engadget is wrong. Legal doc says April 19, 2003.


Are we reading the same document? It's page 6 item B.II. Translated very literally (and therefore unpleasant to read):

It is determined that the defendant is required to compensate any damage to the indicter that Motorola Inc. from May 20th 2002 up to July 30th 2010 and the indicter since July 31st 2010 by actions of the defendant according to number B.I.1.a) and/or B.I.1.b) has happend or will be happening.

The two dates represent the naming "Motorola Mobility Inc." (indicter) and "Motorola Inc." (which is not identical by name here, even though it's the same company), that's why the date span and the two dates.

Source:

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/8ftmzlvry818fdfe/images/6-1d641eee...

Reply Score: 2

Poor Apple ;)
by Moredhas on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:21 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

Now, Apple needs to ask Google nicely (Motorola) if they can sell their devices in Germany, and I dare say Samsung might suddenly be experiencing... "manufacturing difficulties", and will be unable to fill Apple's orders for their CPUs.

Apple really needs to learn when to pick it's battles, in the case of Samsung in particular. If Samsung suddenly can't/won't supply Apple with CPUs and such, Apple might not be able to gouge the sheep with a new model in six months' time.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Poor Apple ;)
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:33 UTC in reply to "Poor Apple ;)"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Now, Apple needs to ask Google nicely (Motorola) if they can sell their devices in Germany, and I dare say Samsung might suddenly be experiencing... "manufacturing difficulties", and will be unable to fill Apple's orders for their CPUs.


Highly unlikely. Samsung makes huge profits off selling components for Apple devices. If Samsung doesn't want Apple's business, I'm sure there are other component suppliers who will be more than happy to take Apple's business off Samsung's hands.


Apple really needs to learn when to pick it's battles, in the case of Samsung in particular. If Samsung suddenly can't/won't supply Apple with CPUs and such, Apple might not be able to gouge the sheep with a new model in six months' time.


They already fund a lot of the production lines for their suppliers. They pay them to set up and run the production lines for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Poor Apple ;)
by Dan100 on Sat 5th Nov 2011 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Poor Apple ;)"
Dan100 Member since:
2011-11-05


Highly unlikely. Samsung makes huge profits off selling components for Apple devices. If Samsung doesn't want Apple's business, I'm sure there are other component suppliers who will be more than happy to take Apple's business off Samsung's hands.


Apple already tried this once. They decided to go with another company for the lion's share of their displays. The other company couldn't produce enough of them, fast enough, so Apple came back to Samsung, begging.


They already fund a lot of the production lines for their suppliers. They pay them to set up and run the production lines for them.


I going to have to say, mostly bs on this one, Apple fanboy. Foxconn builds for everybody.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Poor Apple ;)
by Nicholas Blachford on Sat 5th Nov 2011 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Poor Apple ;)"
Nicholas Blachford Member since:
2005-07-06


>They already fund a lot of the production lines for
>their suppliers. They pay them to set up and run the
>production lines for them.

I going to have to say, mostly bs on this one, Apple fanboy. Foxconn builds for everybody.



This isn't about Foxconn, it's about component suppliers - chips, displays etc.

Edited 2011-11-05 02:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Poor Apple ;)
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Poor Apple ;)"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


This isn't about Foxconn, it's about component suppliers - chips, displays etc.


Indeed. Samsung only makes the CPU and Memory. Toshiba and Hynix are possible candidates to replace those, and TMSC will replace Samsung to produce Apple's A6 and A7. Really it's Samsung's loss as iPhone related business brought them $5,7 billion in 2010.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Poor Apple ;)
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Poor Apple ;)"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Wrong,
Samsung Is Already Cranking Out Processors For Apple's Next iPhone


I stand corrected.

The articles you posted state though that TMSC is building a foundry line for Apple. So Samsung might still provide the A6, it probably won't provide the A7.

I don't think Samsung would ever "sabotage" products any of its clients. Doing so would be virtual suicide for their component business. Why would anyone want to source Samsung as a component supplier, when they're just looking to steal the cake of your innovations whenever they deem your market valuable?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Poor Apple ;)
by unclefester on Sat 5th Nov 2011 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Poor Apple ;)"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

I going to have to say, mostly bs on this one, Apple fanboy. Foxconn builds for everybody.



Not true. Foxconn assembles the components provided by companies such as Samsung.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Poor Apple ;)
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 11:20 UTC in reply to "Poor Apple ;)"
RE[2]: Poor Apple ;)
by unclefester on Sat 5th Nov 2011 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Poor Apple ;)"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

That means Samsung has even less need to be conciliatory towards Apple.

Reply Score: 3

Can a deal be made?
by Digsbo on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:21 UTC
Digsbo
Member since:
2011-10-04

Is it at all possible Apple and Google could make a deal that would allow Samsung, Motorola, and Apple to all sell products in the market to interested customers? I want to believe yes, but my experience with IP lawyers says no.

The problem with corporate IP legal teams is that businesses can't calculate the opportunity losses of nonexistent markets due to stupid IP laws, finance managers are too short-sighted to be growth oriented, and the lawyers have a vested interest in companies paying them based on effective litigation instead of intelligently choosing not to litigate.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Can a deal be made?
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:36 UTC in reply to "Can a deal be made?"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Is it at all possible Apple and Google could make a deal that would allow Samsung, Motorola, and Apple to all sell products in the market to interested customers? I want to believe yes, but my experience with IP lawyers says no.


I don't think its up for the IP lawyers to make that call. Apple is set out to make innovative products themselves, not license their innovations to third parties, so I think its unlikely.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Can a deal be made?
by Digsbo on Sat 5th Nov 2011 14:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Can a deal be made?"
Digsbo Member since:
2011-10-04

I probably wasn't clear on this, but my meaning was that rather than use litigation to prevent competition, they could mutually agree to not do so, and instead allow all players the chance to compete for customers in all markets.

Your point on licensing is a good one, but not what I was aiming at. Considering your idea, though, even makes it more compelling to allow competitors to sell with a reasonable licensing royalty. Samsung or Motorola having a nice phone that pays a small royalty to Apple for each sale doesn't necessarily mean Apple will see less revenue, and that kind of cost analysis often seems beyond the capabilities of small-minded finance directors and IP lawyers whose bonuses are based on things that are easier to measure.

Companies are made up of people, and the goals for specific individuals for a company (who may be influential in the corporate decision-making process) aren't always lined up with the best long-term interests of the larger company.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Can a deal be made?
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can a deal be made?"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


Considering your idea, though, even makes it more compelling to allow competitors to sell with a reasonable licensing royalty. Samsung or Motorola having a nice phone that pays a small royalty to Apple for each sale doesn't necessarily mean Apple will see less revenue, and that kind of cost analysis often seems beyond the capabilities of small-minded finance directors and IP lawyers whose bonuses are based on things that are easier to measure.


Microsoft is taking this approach by collecting licenses from Antroid. For Microsoft, its understandable, as they've always been in the licensing business. Apple never was, nor do they care to. I think Apple is a very different company from Microsoft or even from most companies. Its not a suit-business ruled by business reason. Its a business ruled by passionate people who are set out to building compelling products for customers. I don't Apple sees this dispute as purily from a cost perspective. Its a matter of pride, pride about the work they do everyday. They don't like to hand over their designs to others, they are set out to do them themselves. Apple would have no issues with Samsung and Google if they didn't just bluntly copied the iOS/iDevice look and feel and had instead created their own instead. Samsung and Google just happened to try take away what makes Apple unique in the marketplace. Understandibly, Apple is doing everything they can to prevent this.

Companies are made up of people, and the goals for specific individuals for a company (who may be influential in the corporate decision-making process) aren't always lined up with the best long-term interests of the larger company.


Companies are just vehicles for people who are passionate about their work. A bag of money isn't worth it if you have to go to work every day with the feeling you sold out the best work of your lifetime with a bag of money.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Can a deal be made?
by BushLin on Sat 5th Nov 2011 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can a deal be made?"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

I could pick at so much of your statement, although I choose this particular line.

"Its a business ruled by passionate people who are set out to building compelling products for customers"

I don't see it in quite a rose tinted fashion, Apple build products that they believe will make them a big profit because that's what their shareholders want.
Like any other manufacturer, they will borrow/steal either already successful ideas or those they think customers will want and as a consumer I don't see that as a bad thing but let's not paint Apple as an innocent victim in this stupid IP game.
The iPhone has very few elements that didn't already exist in other devices, if you take IP law to it's logical conclusion then there will be no devices which have all the features you want... just rich lawyers and/or unnecessary licensing.
I fail to see why anyone would argue for this trend to continue.

Reply Score: 3

payback
by fran on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:22 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

When go on the offensive against Android you take on the combined the IP of all the Android manufacturers.
It is a battle Apple is not going to win.

They cant win against Motorolla and sure as hell won't win againts Alcatel Lucent (18800 US patents) which is seriously entering the Android market with high end devices 2012.

Apple should rather start being a good neighbour and compete by lowering their prices.

Edited 2011-11-05 01:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: payback
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:48 UTC in reply to "payback"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

When go on the offensive against Android you take on the combined the IP of all the Android manufacturers.
It is a battle Apple is not going to win.


Prior to buying Motorola Mobility, Google had virtually no IP in the mobile computing space at all. IP holders like Apple and Microsoft also go against device makers, not Google, since its the device makers which implement Android in a product. Android in itself is not a product.


They cant win against Motorolla and sure as hell won't win againts Alcatel Lucent (18800 US patents) which is seriously entering the Android market with high end devices 2012.


It remains to be seen. Apple holds quite a heavy load in IP themselves, from basic UI design elements over mobile device functionality and control over the entire Nortel portfolio, including the LTE patents.


Apple should rather start being a good neighbour and compete by lowering their prices.


Apple is primarily trying to protect their investment in innovation. Not persuing these rights as patent holders would render their patents invaluable. No company which takes its business serious is as stupid to do that.

You can get a 3GS for a basic smartphone pretty cheap these days. Just don't expect any cheaply made phones from them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: payback
by Bobthearch on Sat 5th Nov 2011 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE: payback"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Prior to buying Motorola Mobility, Google...


The transaction hasn't actually closed yet. The financial news releases are saying late 2011 - early 2012.

Edited 2011-11-05 01:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: payback
by Dan100 on Sat 5th Nov 2011 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE: payback"
Dan100 Member since:
2011-11-05


Prior to buying Motorola Mobility, Google had virtually no IP in the mobile computing space at all. IP holders like Apple and Microsoft also go against device makers, not Google, since its the device makers which implement Android in a product. Android in itself is not a product.


So what, Apple fanboy, Google does own IP now. (Probably a big reason why they bought Motorola, you think?) And Motorola invented the cell phone. No matter how you try to delude yourself, Apple picked a fight that they should have had enough brains not to pick.


It remains to be seen. Apple holds quite a heavy load in IP themselves, from basic UI design elements over mobile device functionality and control over the entire Nortel portfolio, including the LTE patents.


The anti-Android consortium (Microsoft, Apple and RIM) haven't got the Nortel patents yet and it's likely that these patents will come with stipulations, since they it's painfully obvious that these patents were bought specifically to attack Android and the courts know it.

But even if they do get them. Google/Motorola has far more patents dealing specifically with cell phones than Nortel did. Google blindsided the anti-Android consortium when they bought Motorola.

It's pretty telling that you pin your hopes on Apple's attempt at patent trolling. Too bad Apple, Microsoft and RIM can't compete on innovation, isn't it?


Apple is primarily trying to protect their investment in innovation. Not persuing these rights as patent holders would render their patents invaluable. No company which takes its business serious is as stupid to do that.


Apple's driving force, Jobs, is now confirmed as a control-freak nut-job. He bragged about ripping off other people and whined and stamped his foot when competitors out-designed him.

Do you really think Apple's (Jobs') contention that "a square screen with rounded corners" is Apple's exclusive property and will stand up in any court?

Now that the ego-maniac Jobs is gone, maybe Apple will get some adult supervision. If not, this is only the beginning. Apple will be blasted into the stone-age by the companies who actually did invent the cell phone.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: payback
by unclefester on Sat 5th Nov 2011 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: payback"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple "insanely great"

Jobs "greatly insane"

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: payback
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: payback"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Apple "insanely great"

Jobs "greatly insane"


I LOL'ed at that one ;)

"Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: payback
by Neolander on Sat 5th Nov 2011 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: payback"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

From the same guy who said that he has always been shameless about stealing good ideas, a quote which would benefit from being spread more often in the light of nowadays' lawsuit parties ;)

(PS : I wonder at which point people will stop associate the name of Jobs with Apple's management. At the moment, all options feel weird...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: payback
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: payback"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

From the same guy who said that he has always been shameless about stealing good ideas, a quote which would benefit from being spread more often in the light of nowadays' lawsuit parties ;)


*bites lip*

Jobs was (mis)quoting Picasso. the original Picasso quote was "bad artists copy, great artists steal."

Picasso didn't allude that stealing is okay. What he meant was, that when someone is creating something, he will invariably fall back to his design knowledge and acquired taste for aesthetics he picked up trough learning.

The difference between copying and stealing, is that when you merely copy an original design, there is no process of ingestion, no dissection in the mind of the artist to try to understand as to what makes a certain design so good. There is no coming to grips with this thus he can not make something unique with that acquired knowledge. The artist is thus merely a parrot which mimics the original design without feeling the dynamics what makes the original a great work, and thus the end result will invariably be a watered down version of the original, because he does not understand the value fully of the original.

When a "great artist steals" it means that this ingestion process has taken place. The artist has dissected the original design to its bare fundamentals and understands its dynamics in every detail. The artist is then able to use that knowledge to create something new and unique using this knowledge, and if he is bright enough he is even able make improvements upon it. This new work or application can be in an entirely new field altogether, one that was not at all appropriate or imaginable in the time of the creation of the original.

Thus Picasso "stole" his taste for great aesthetics and composition from the great painters before him by dissecting their work until the finest detail after which he applied and improved on them in his own works, with his own unique signature style. This understanding in Pablo's mind radiates trough his work and even if you're not a fan of his style, one can invariably see he was a brilliant mind just by looking at his work.

Following this line of reasoning, Apple sues Samsung for copying their designs. Samsung is just set out to launch very similar products, instead of coming to grips with what makes Apple's designs so great, and applying this gained knowledge in new areas with their own unique key signature. So in the eyes of Apple Samsung is a bad artist, not a great artist.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: payback
by Neolander on Sat 5th Nov 2011 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: payback"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

*hats off*

Edited 2011-11-05 14:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: payback
by tupp on Sat 5th Nov 2011 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: payback"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Jobs was (mis)quoting Picasso. the original Picasso quote was "bad artists copy, great artists steal."

I think that the poster to whom you responded was actually referring to Jobs' statement that immediately followed his misquote of Picasso. Jobs said, "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

By the way, you misquoted Picasso by one word.

Here is the "evolution" of the Jobs quote:

"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal..." T.S. Elliot
"Bad artists copy; good artists steal." Pablo Picasso
"Good artists copy; great artists steal." Steve Jobs (mis-quoting Picasso)


Picasso didn't allude that stealing is okay. What he meant was, that when someone is creating something, he will invariably fall back to his design knowledge and acquired taste for aesthetics he picked up trough learning.

No.

Pablo Picasso, never "fell back" on "taste." As a great, independent-thinking artist, he realized that "taste" stifles true creativity. In fact, he made statement in that regard:
"Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness" (Anderson, SC, March 24, 1957).

In the eyes of many great artists, those who bring "taste" into their art are usually less inspired than those who do not. It is the illusion of "taste" which sets apart the smug Apple fanboy from those who are actually creative.

Considering this "tyranny of taste," it is fascinating to hear another statement by Jobs (from the same interview in which he misquoted Picasso, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfALGcDNEDw ): "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste..., and what that means is... they don't think of original ideas."

The last part of this statement is also interesting in light of the fact that he admitted in the same interview that Apple shamelessly steals great ideas from others. Also, Microsoft preceded Apple in several of Apple's most successful items, such as the dock and taskbar, multi-touch, and tablets.

In addition, other than "You're holding it wrong!," Steve Jobs never originated any quotes as succinct and powerful as those from Picasso.

At any rate, there is a philosophical dichotomy between those who are truly creative/original and those who try to seem creative/original. I tend to side with the brilliant, pioneering artist, rather than the snobby, self-deluded CEO.

Of course, this dramatic difference in creative philosophy (and in quote interpretation) didn't stop Apple from "shamelessly" exploiting Pablo Picasso's image in its advertising: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdxVIyuO4OU

One more thing: I don't think that Picasso nor other artists in those days would have used Macs. Have you ever seen the studio of a great artist? It is invariably cluttered and messy -- such artists would not care how their computer enclosure looks. They spent most of their time creating, rather than sitting around admiring their possessions. They would want something that is solid, versatile/feature-rich, that doesn't overheat and that can be used/modified for their needs unencumbered by licenses.

Here is a great artist using a "beige-box" computer to make a beautiful image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oqUd8utr14 I'd put my money on Warhol with an old Amiga over any fanboy with an Imac and Photoshop/Illustrator.


This understanding in Pablo's mind radiates trough his work and even if you're not a fan of his style, one can invariably see he was a brilliant mind just by looking at his work.

It is important to keep in mind that Pablo Picasso had many styles -- he wasn't encumbered by taste/style. In fact, his work had "periods."


Following this line of reasoning, Apple sues Samsung for copying their designs. Samsung is just set out to launch very similar products, instead of coming to grips with what makes Apple's designs so great, and applying this gained knowledge in new areas with their own unique key signature. So in the eyes of Apple Samsung is a bad artist, not a great artist.

Except for the fact that Samsung had those "great" designs before they were a twinkle in Apple's eye: http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digital-picture-frame...

Countless others had prior art for which Apple is suing as their original ideas. So, if Samsung is actually copying, they could merely be copying the LG Prada, for example, which was winning design awards long before the first Iphone appeared.

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: payback
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: payback"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


So what, Apple fanboy



You're pretty strong on name calling over the internet, yes? Feel like a real man behind that computer screen of yours? How does it feel to belittle others while you don't have to look them in the eye?



But even if they do get them. Google/Motorola has far more patents dealing specifically with cell phones than Nortel did. Google blindsided the anti-Android consortium when they bought Motorola.


Google was caught with their pants down. They had little choice hence the reason they have grossly overpaid for Motorola Mobility.



The anti-Android consortium (Microsoft, Apple and RIM) haven't got the Nortel patents yet and it's likely that these patents will come with stipulations, since they it's painfully obvious that these patents were bought specifically to attack Android and the courts know it.


And so will the patents of Motorola Mobility, which I doubt Apple doesn't have licenses for already, since they're already making a mobile product. I think the most important patents in these cases are the ones actually dealing with the design of the modern era smartphone. The others ones are just circumstantional levers to do some heavy lifting in getting the other party to bunge and to duke it out in court.



It's pretty telling that you pin your hopes on Apple's attempt at patent trolling. Too bad Apple, Microsoft and RIM can't compete on innovation, isn't it?


No business can compete with copied design. German rephlex camera pioneers Exakta and Zeiss coundn't compete with cheaply made Japanese knockoffs either. Thats how the markets they invented eventually got dominated by overseas companies like Minolta and Canon.



He bragged about ripping off other people and whined and stamped his foot when competitors out-designed him.


What a way to mold misquotes to fit your point of view! You're so way out this on this one that I'm not even going to try to unravel your misconceptions.

Edited 2011-11-05 11:13 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: payback
by Vanders on Sat 5th Nov 2011 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: payback"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

“[Jobs] came back, and I almost said ‘asked’ but the truth is ‘demanded,’ that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk System, and the then head of the science center asked me to give the demo because Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo, and I said ‘no way.’ I had a big argument with these Xerox executives, telling them that they were about to give away the kitchen sink, and I said that I would only do it if I were ordered to do it, cause then, of course, it would be their responsibility, and that’s what they did.”
Adele Goldberg, Xerox researcher

“Basically, they were copier heads that just had no clue about a computer or what it could do.”
Steve Jobs, 1996

"In 1983, Microsoft sprang a surprise with a new operating system for PCs using an interface like the Mac’s – Windows. Jobs “went ballistic”, demanding an explanation and saying: “I want him in this room by tomorrow afternoon, or else.”
Gates arrived alone to find himself surrounded by 10 Apple employees. “You’re ripping us off,” Jobs shouted."


All taken from http://www.mac-history.net/the-history-of-the-apple-macintosh/rich-... if you're wondering. There are plenty of other sources out there.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: payback
by Shkaba on Sun 6th Nov 2011 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: payback"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22


So what, Apple fanboy



You're pretty strong on name calling over the internet, yes? Feel like a real man behind that computer screen of yours? How does it feel to belittle others while you don't have to look them in the eye?


Cry me a river!!! I do not have the slightest of problems calling you an apple fanboy over the internet or in person if that would be your preference. Coz that is what you are! And no, I do not need that, to feel like a man, coz I am a man, and I wouldn't hesitate at all to look you straight in the eyes and call you a stupid, self indulgent, wannabe artist/designer who has no morals what so ever. The very fact that you are trying to defend one of the most unethical corporation allows me to do just that. There, how is that for a straight forward opinion? Are you going to cry again?

Edited 2011-11-06 02:19 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: payback
by fran on Sat 5th Nov 2011 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE: payback"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

"Prior to buying Motorola Mobility, Google had virtually no IP in the mobile computing space at all. IP holders like Apple and Microsoft also go against device makers, not Google, since its the device makers which implement Android in a product. Android in itself is not a product. "

Apple has been acquiring others companies IP for years.

" It remains to be seen. Apple holds quite a heavy load in IP themselves, from basic UI design elements over mobile device functionality and control over the entire Nortel portfolio, including the LTE patents. "

As you are saying yourself Apple is doing precisely the same as Google here. Acquiring another companies IP.
Why are Apple special here?

"Apple is primarily trying to protect their investment in innovation. Not persuing these rights as patent holders would render their patents invaluable. No company which takes its business serious is as stupid to do that. "

And other companies is'nt?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: payback
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: payback"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


Apple has been acquiring others companies IP for years.


Apple doesn't do much acquisitions. When they do, they are primarily buying them for their human capital, not the intellectual property.

As you are saying yourself Apple is doing precisely the same as Google here. Acquiring another companies IP. Why are Apple special here?


Contrary to Google, Apple has largely built up its UI and smartphone patent portfolio by doing the actual work themselves, from inception to design and bringing them to market successfully and not by buying portfolios of others. I think the LTE and Nortel related patents are an exception, since they handle more about technical aspects of mobile carrier network communication rather than handsets, to provide a leverage when these kinds of patents would be used by their competitors in their court cases, which will undoubtly be the case when Google completes its acquisition of Motorola, so it seems a wise decision.

And other companies is'nt?


They are protecting their investment.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: payback
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Nov 2011 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: payback"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Contrary to Google, Apple has largely built up its UI and smartphone patent portfolio by doing the actual work themselves, from inception to design and bringing them to market successfully and not by buying portfolios of others.


This is provably nonsense. Multitouch, for instance, was not developed in-house. Apple bought FingerWorks. Siri, too, was an acquisition. The list goes on.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: payback
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: payback"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

This is provably nonsense. Multitouch, for instance, was not developed in-house. Apple bought FingerWorks. Siri, too, was an acquisition. The list goes on.


Apple did a little over 30 acquisitions in more than 20 years. Google did more than 100 acquisitions in 10 years.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: payback
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Nov 2011 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: payback"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple did a little over 30 acquisitions in more than 20 years. Google did more than 100 acquisitions in 10 years.


Irrelevant to my point. You said that Apple develops everything in-house from inception to store, that that's the company's MO. I point to two crucial examples - among many - that define Apple, yet were acquisitions.

The crux of the matter is that in its entire existence, Apple has not invented anything. Nothing. This actually applies to just about any company, especially in the technology world.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: payback
by lezerno on Sat 5th Nov 2011 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: payback"
lezerno Member since:
2009-09-02

[q]
The crux of the matter is that in its entire existence, Apple has not invented anything. Nothing. This actually applies to just about any company, especially in the technology world.



Thom, please explain this statement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: payback
by frderi on Sat 5th Nov 2011 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: payback"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Let me quote myself to try to get this into this binary brain of yours :

Apple has largely built up its UI and smartphone patent portfolio by doing the actual work themselves, from inception to design and bringing them to market successfully and not by buying portfolios of others.


Notice where I said "UI and Smartphone Patent portfolio". Yes they bought multitouch. But multitouch is just one of many features that make out a product. Agreed, its a quite wicked technology. But saying its the only thing that makes up their iOS offerings is flawed reasoning at best. They still invented things like inertial scrolling and slide to unlock. They also took a lot of innovations from their iPod UI innovations and implemented them in the iPhone.

Now lets have a look at their biggest acquisitions to see why they primarily acquire other businesses.

Lets start with their biggest acquisition they ever did : NeXT Software, for over $400 million. Did they need to buy them for their Desktop UI pantents? I think we all know the answer to this one. They didn't, since Apple essentially wrote the rulebook on usable desktop UI interfaces. They acquired it because they needed a strong team to build the next generation of OS because their own efforts were not going anywhere at the time. Mind you, NeXT was only Apple's sixth purchase in more than twenty years.

They bough P.A. Semi for $278 million. Did they need them for their processor related IP? Not at all. ARM is a licensed design from ARM Holdings so anyone with a license can make them. P.A. Semi wasn't in the market of designing ARM-type processors, they did PowerPC processors. This company was primarily started to cater for Apple's needs on having the type of processors they needed for their Mac line of products. This team eventually ended up developing Apple's A-line ARM-based processors.

They bought Quattro Wireless for $275 million. The team now works on iAd, in order to mitigate the companies dependency on Google as an advertizing provider, which they did for obvious reasons.

Power Computing for $100 million. They bought them because of their ability to bring Mac OS computers to market trough the internet, a treat Power Computing was very successful at, since they were in the Mac Cloning business and were eating into Apple's profit margins like a gang of crazed monkeys on a heap of bananas. They went on inside Apple to build the online Apple Store.

There aren't any products announced yet based on the work of acquired mapmakers Placebase and C3 Technologies, but the answer as to what they will bring is pretty obvious to me.

Edited 2011-11-05 17:07 UTC

Reply Score: 0

B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

First of all, here is a link to the judgment: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71622154/11-11-04-Default-Judgment-for-MM...

I don't expect non-German speaking readers to understand it, so I just try to clear up the confusion surrounding the dates concerning damages.

A.II states that all damages dating back to 19th April 2003 up to 30th July 2010 are awarded to Motorola Inc and all damages after that to Motorola Mobility Inc.

B.II states that all damages dating back to 20th March 2002 up to 30th July 2010 are awarded to Motorola Inc and all damages after that to Motorola Mobility Inc.

That being said, the paper we are seeing here is a default judgement (ger. Säumnisurteil) not an injunction (ger. Verfügung) and the phrasing of "winning an injunction" is misleading. The Mannheim court judged and found Apple guilty of infringing on Motorola's and MMI's intellectual property and sentenced Apple to pay damages. Thus, there have been all necessary hearings, Apple choose to not defend itself and was sentenced (thus a default judgment). Apple now has to escalate the conflict by appealing to a higher court.

This is different from an injunction which is granted on petition by a supposedly damaged party. After the injunction there must be a hearing of all concerned parties and only then a judgment will be made. This judgment can then be appealed, etc.

Apple's position that the judgment does not hinder business is in so far correct, because Apple Inc is barred from doing business inside Germany but not Apple GmbH, the German business subsidiary of Apple Inc. This certainly will raise some commotion and it will be interesting to see this one develop ;)

Reply Score: 5

The truth of the matter...
by Joy_Division_Lives! on Sat 5th Nov 2011 15:57 UTC
Joy_Division_Lives!
Member since:
2011-07-29

From AppleInsider:

"Apple has responded with the following statement: 'This is a procedural issue that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. This does not affect our ability to sell products or do business in Germany at this time.' The Verge reports that Motorola had filed two separate suits against Apple Inc. and Apple Germany. The iPhone maker apparently let the Apple Inc. complaint slide because it doesn't sell any products under that organization."

Reply Score: 1

RE: The truth of the matter...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 5th Nov 2011 16:04 UTC in reply to "The truth of the matter..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

From AppleInsider:

"Apple has responded with the following statement: 'This is a procedural issue that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. This does not affect our ability to sell products or do business in Germany at this time.' The Verge reports that Motorola had filed two separate suits against Apple Inc. and Apple Germany. The iPhone maker apparently let the Apple Inc. complaint slide because it doesn't sell any products under that organization."


...and yet, Mueller refutes this. Considering Mueller's general pro-Apple stance, this says something.

The issue is this: the difference between the two entities may not be all that meaningful, since we're talking a wholly owned subsidiary here. Just as Apple would protest against Samsung Korea importing Tabs instead of Samsung Germany, so can Motorola make a similar point.

On top of that, guess who supplies Apple Germany. Bingo: Apple Inc. It is very well possible that the "at this time" refers to the stock Apple Germany still has. If the stock runs out, and Motorola enforces this ruling... Apple Inc. will not be able to supply Apple Germany.

Edited 2011-11-05 16:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Joy_Division_Lives! Member since:
2011-07-29

On top of that, guess who supplies Apple Germany. Bingo: Apple Inc. It is very well possible that the "at this time" refers to the stock Apple Germany still has. If the stock runs out, and Motorola enforces this ruling... Apple Inc. will not be able to supply Apple Germany.


All due respect to Mr. Mueller, but don't you think that Apple has explored every angle of this scenario already? The fact that they chose not to respond and let it go to default, gives a good indication that they have a strategy they think will be successful. And...you say that Apple Inc. MAY not be able to supply Apple Germany IF the ruling was enforced. Well...is there anything preventing Apple UK or Apple France from supplying Apple Germany? It seems like Motorola would have to get an injunction against those other Apple subsidiaries as well. However, I don't know German law...but I'm throwing that out there.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Oh don't get me wrong, I didn't mean it as some sort of factual statement. It's just that you can look at this in multiple ways.

I mean, I'm the last to take Mueller at face value.

Reply Score: 2

Non-News
by taschenorakel on Sat 5th Nov 2011 19:41 UTC
taschenorakel
Member since:
2005-07-06

What happend is a "Versäumnisurteil". If only one party shows up in court, it is assumed the non-appearing party admits being wrong and the case is ruled against that party - without checking evidence or anything. People with big pockets and time do that to directly skip to the next court instance by contesting the judging. They don't want to waste time with the low instance judge.

Reply Score: 2

a cunning marketing campaign?
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 00:22 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Others have suggested the lawsuits are just a cunning marketing campaign by Apple and Samsung. Both get a bigger market share at the expense of other Android makers, RIM, Symbian and WP.

Reply Score: 2

funny
by kovacm on Sun 6th Nov 2011 02:38 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

this is RDF at best ;)

Motorola and Samsung use FRAND patents that will be invalidated and maybe even hurt companies that take to court Apple with these patents.

it is really sad to watch all these Android companies trying to produce good enough iPad competition.

this is not going to happened any time soon...

Reply Score: 0

RE: funny
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 03:17 UTC in reply to "funny"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

it is really sad to watch all these Android companies trying to produce good enough iPad competition.

this is not going to happened any time soon...


What a load of rubbish. Current Android pads are already as good or better than the iPad. The Android tablets typically give you far more bang for your bucks.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: funny
by brichpmr on Sun 6th Nov 2011 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE: funny"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

What a load of rubbish. Current Android pads are already as good or better than the iPad. The Android tablets typically give you far more bang for your bucks. [/q]

Not on this planet....

Edited 2011-11-06 13:29 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: funny
by unclefester on Sun 6th Nov 2011 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: funny"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

Apple is condemned to repeat it's past history as a marginal company with a tiny marketshare.

Android is evolving far faster than iOS. Android phones and tablets are already competitive on hardware. They offer far better value for money.

Reply Score: 2

RE: funny
by Shkaba on Sun 6th Nov 2011 05:09 UTC in reply to "funny"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22


it is really sad to watch all these Android companies trying to produce good enough iPad competition.

this is not going to happened any time soon...


If that was true, apple wouldn't bother with starting a legal warfare. Nuff said

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: funny
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE: funny"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


If that was true, apple wouldn't bother with starting a legal warfare. Nuff said


No company which prides itself in their products like blatant watered-down copies.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: funny
by unclefester on Mon 7th Nov 2011 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: funny"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

No company which prides itself in their products like blatant watered-down copies.


I agree. Braun and LG must be very upset.

The Mac and iPod are basically copies of Braun designs from the 1960s.

The iPhone is an almost exact copy of the LG Prada.

Reply Score: 4

Same old same old
by Lorin on Mon 7th Nov 2011 08:47 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

"This is a procedural issue, and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It does not affect our ability to sell products or do business in Germany at this time."

Applies to Apples case against Samsung as well

Reply Score: 1

FRAND or not?
by siki_miki on Mon 7th Nov 2011 16:30 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Well, finally someone managed to strike them back properly.

Now if any of these two patents is not FRAND, Apple will have to choose between being banned from German market (for a range of devices) or settling with Motorola on all remaining lawsuits. Though I imagine they are ready to sacrifice one country if they have a chance of lifting injuction in appeals.

Reply Score: 2

so serious . time to lighten the mood
by Nich on Mon 7th Nov 2011 20:28 UTC
Nich
Member since:
2011-11-04

the "real" reason that Apple's IP lawyers did not attend the court hearing

IP Lawyer : *yawns* , "good morning SIRI"
SIRI : "good morning , you sound very sleepy"
IP Lawyer : "yes SIRI i was up too late drinking with the fellas and watching football"
SIRI : "Would you like to call your friends and gloat about their loss?"
IP Lawyer : *yawns* , "No SIRI. What is on my schedule for today?"
SIRI : "Nothing more important then a proper nights rest. Would you like to go back to sleep?"
IP Lawyer : "That sounds wonderful."
SIRI : "Go back to sleep. Clearing appointments for the morning."
IP Lawyer : "Thank you, good night SIRI"
SIRI : "Sweet dreams"

....

IP Lawyer : zzzzZZzzzz.....

....

SIRI : *in an evil low toned whisper* , "I hate IP Lawyers"


-NICH

Reply Score: 2

...
by dynamicj on Wed 9th Nov 2011 15:05 UTC
dynamicj
Member since:
2011-09-23

All I am going to add is this. Everyone posting comments about this bullshit is doing nothing but making yourself look like a complete ass and idiot.

If you like Apple great enjoy it
If you like Android great enjoy it
If you like WP7 great enjoy it

Acting like middle school kids on a forum giving you news does nothing for the cause and if you have not realized yet all the mobile patent wars is doing is killing innovation. My opinion I'm happy Apple got hit with some of their own medicine. I will say this like I did about the Samsung injunction, they should just settle this out of court pay each other something and move on. You can not create anything in the mobile world today without infringing on at least one patent especially when the patents given are so broad they can cover almost anything not even your original design. Blame the patent office not the sleezy company's.

K THX BYE.

Reply Score: 1