Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2012 22:04 UTC, submitted by C
Legal "Google's Motorola Mobility unit said it filed a new patent-infringement case against Apple claiming that features on some Apple devices, including the Siri voice-recognition program, infringe its patents. The complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission claims infringement of seven Motorola Mobility patents on features including location reminders, e-mail notification and phone/video players, Motorola Mobility said yesterday. The case seeks a ban on U.S. imports of devices including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers." Can anybody explain to me how this is a new suit when Motorola and Apple have been wasting tax money and court resources for years now?
Order by: Score:
Importing?
by darknexus on Tue 21st Aug 2012 22:29 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

The case seeks a ban on U.S. imports of devices including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers.


How, exactly, does that work? Apple is a US company and, while I know they manufacture everything in China and/or Taiwan like everyone else, is that legally considered importing in this case given that the company itself originates in the US? I'm actually asking, as I don't know.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Importing?
by kenji on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:22 UTC in reply to "Importing?"
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

Manufacturing origin is what matters as the physical item must pass through borders.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:04 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Is it an aggression or defense against Apple's attack? It's not clear from the article:

Motorola Mobility and Apple have been fighting since at least 2010 after licensing talks failed. Apple has said Motorola Mobility is making unreasonable demands, and argues that phones made by Motorola Mobility and other handset manufacturers that run on Google’s Android operating system are copying key patented features of the iPhone.


The question would be, who started the fight?

Edited 2012-08-21 23:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by andydread on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"The question would be, who started the fight?


Motorola sued Apple first.

2010, Oct 06: Motorola sued Apple over 18 patents, and filed an ITC complaint against Apple over 6 of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars


Rearrange the following words to make a well known saying:

A

Man

Drowning

Straw

Clutching

At

A

:)
"

Apple started this "We are going to destroy Android, I'm willing to go thermonuclear on this, I am willing to spend every bit of Apple's 50 Billion in the bank to right this wrong." -- Steve Jobs.

Motorola sued apple first in an pre-emptive attempt to get a declaratory judgement that they do not infringe 7 patents that Apple was threatening them with.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I applaud you for reading PatentlyApple!!!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The book, in which the quote surfaced, was released in 2011. Motorola sued Apple in 2010.

Preemptive strike with paranormal foresight?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by ichi on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Apple had already sued HTC earlier that year. Considering they could just throw the same case against Motorola, yes, it was preemptive.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

If it was it was not based on Steve's quote.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by ichi on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 07:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

If it was it was not based on Steve's quote.


Probably not (I don't know when he said that exactly) but Apple had already begun their offensive on Android anyway.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

The book, in which the quote surfaced, was released in 2011. Motorola sued Apple in 2010.


And the relevance would be ....?

Preemptive strike with paranormal foresight?


Durr, yup, because it's not like Apple gave any other hints of their obsessive crusade to destroy Android.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Apple started this "We are going to destroy Android, I'm willing to go thermonuclear on this, I am willing to spend every bit of Apple's 50 Billion in the bank to right this wrong." -- Steve Jobs.

Motorola sued apple first in an pre-emptive attempt to get a declaratory judgement that they do not infringe 7 patents that Apple was threatening them with.


This reminds me of a famous saying by a manager of one of the top soccer clubs in the UK a few years ago. One of his players had just committed a really awful foul, almost broke his opponents leg. When challenged about the foul in a TV interview after the game his manger said "he was jut getting his retaliation in first".

What tortuous knots you Google/Android fans tie yourselves in. Interesting that Motorola announced its legal attack on Apple, opening the legal conflict between them, very shortly after Google announced it's acquisition. It's pretty obvious that one reason for Google buying Motorola, in so far as there were rational reasons, was to use it as an arms length vehicle for a patent assault on Apple, all the while whining about how patents are soooo unfair.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Right, because when you punch me in the face and I defend myself by punching back, I am no longer allowed to complain about how punching me in the face is a stupid thing to do.

Sigh.

Reply Score: 4

Motorola
by Lorin on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 00:00 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

I used to work there in the 90's and Motorola does if they get it together and find the archives of all the products have more than enough to slam Apple hard.

Samsung had more than enough but the Apple owned judge suppressed the evidence.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Motorola
by dvhh on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 03:13 UTC in reply to "Motorola"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Have any evidences to backup those accusations of judge corruption.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Motorola
by Lorin on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Motorola"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

The action speaks for itself, as per Supreme Court rulings, any evidence that would be compelling enough to change the outcome of any case cannot be withheld by a presiding judge.

Reply Score: 2

Explanation
by Shane on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 01:19 UTC
Shane
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Can anybody explain to me how this is a new suit when Motorola and Apple have been wasting tax money and court resources for years now?"

It's a new suit if it's newly filed.

Reply Score: 6

Comment by tuaris
by tuaris on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 05:37 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

Google is simply trying to demonstrate how silly all the patent stuff is. There is no way the US is going to ban Apple products no matter how much evidence is again them.

I absolutely believe that if the US court system was fair, Apple would lose the case. Of course that will never happen, but Google's goal here is not to have the products banned. It's simply to increase awareness about a serious problem in this country. What better way to do that then go after the "biggest company is US history".

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by tuaris
by przemo_li on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 07:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by tuaris"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Google really try to get those bans.

Patents DO NOT protect anything. As nuclear weapons DO NOT protect anything.

Its matter of fear from using them, that protect if nobody dares to cross the line.

Apple crossed it, and repeatedly stated that they will cross it in the future.

And from those attacks there is no defense.

Google must lunch its own attacks. They will not be defense, but bid to destroy its enemy before enemy destroy Google. Like good nuclear war, it will not work. Both parties will get damaged.

BUT if Google will get even one ban for even one current Apple product in USA Apple stock shares will go down, and with current prices they will go way down. So next CEO will think through his strategy of using patents.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by tuaris
by ichi on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tuaris"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Google wouldn't really get that much from destroying Apple.

I'd bet they'll rather prefer Apple over Microsoft as close competitor in the mobile arena, if only because they aren't competitors in the other areas where Google does actually make money (at least not yet).

Edited 2012-08-22 11:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by tuaris
by zima on Tue 28th Aug 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tuaris"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

As nuclear weapons DO NOT protect anything.
Its matter of fear from using them, that protect if nobody dares to cross the line.

Yeah... it can be easily argued that they prevented the Cold War from becoming hot - hence effectively, they protected against it.

I remember one cute scifi novel in which the whole Cold War era humanity gets transferred/copied/resurrected (nobody quite knows in the novel) in another galaxy, on a sort of copy of the Earth ...except, it's not a sphere any more, but a flat disc.
The result? Instant Ward War III - because, with the new shape of the "Earth" (sort of greater distances when travelling on a ballistic trajectory without the usual spherical curvature of the planet, different gravitational field), ICBM instantly become ineffective. I'd say that would be a probable turn of events.

Plus, without the push to make ICBMs, we wouldn't have orbital launchers - or at least, not nearly so soon so capable ones (R-7, the very first operational ICBM, wasn't even very good as an ICBM, not very practical - but it turned out to be a fabulous launcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GPN-2002-000184.png and eventually "the most reliable [...] most frequently used launch vehicle in the world" http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Delta_Mission/SEM8XK57ESD_0.html - a century of service seems well within its grasp, considering just inaugurated Soyuz launch complex in French Guiana).
All of which gives us very real benefits at the very least in Earth sciences, benefiting humanity (sure, we can say it was incidental - but that's largely how progress works)

Edited 2012-08-29 00:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Funny
by renox on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 07:33 UTC
renox
Member since:
2005-07-06

On one hand "Google doesn't believe in patents" but on the other hand they have decided that the best defense against Apple is attack.
I don't blame them: the current legal/judicial situation is insane, so they have to play by the (current) rules, I just hope that they're also lobbying to change the rules to forbid software patent.

Reply Score: 2

interesting
by fossil on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 12:37 UTC
fossil
Member since:
2009-05-29

Maybe Apple should rethink its policy of total patent war to prevent competition ... not that it will, those with hubris never see it before too late. Live by the sword...

Reply Score: 4

RE: interesting
by shmerl on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 17:01 UTC in reply to "interesting"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

For Apple it's like getting into a rehab center from drugs addiction. Patents are like drugs to them.

Reply Score: 1