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?
Thread beginning with comment 531740
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by tuaris
by ichi on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:12 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by tuaris
by zima on Tue 28th Aug 2012 23:59 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 Parent Score: 2