Apple now suing Moto for Qualcomm's license

[Bateluer]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-motorola-over-qualcomm-license-makes-us-dream-of-a-w/

The purveyors of all things "i" has accused Moto of breaching a licensing contract with Qualcomm when Moto hit Apple with four patent claims in Germany. That license covers wireless technology Qualcomm uses in its MDM6610 chip, and also purportedly covers Qualcomm's customers who purchase and use said chips.

Oy . . . the BS never stops. When higher regulatory bodies will actually step in and do something meaningful to stop this insanity is anyone's guess. You can't make a single product these days without licensing technology from MS, RIM, Moto, Google, HP, HTC, Qualcomm, TI or getting sued by Apple(since they won't license). I'm honestly curious how any mobile product can actually turn a profit with all the crap that goes into the patent and licensing fees.

Its pretty obvious that Apple and Microsoft want to direct customers to their products. Despite massive competition from Android, Apple still generates billions in profit and sells handsets and tabs by the tens of millions. Microsoft, on the other hand, can't pay people to take WP7 phones home, so they sue.

Its a MAJOR hurdle to innovation and consumer choice when the only products they're allowed to buy are from Microsoft and Apple, and neither allows you to customize the device in any meaningful capacity.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

As far as I can tell, this is about Qualcomm already having a license from Motorola for a 3G patent and since Apple uses Qualcomm parts they are arguing that they are covered by that license.

 

[Anubis]

 

[Brian Stirling]

If these lawsuits work and companies are barred from selling there products expect to see this spread to many/all other industries costing the US economy 100's of billions and the world economy trillions. Apple isn't alone at this nonsense but they are front and center and many of the other lawsuits are in response to Apples game. Like I said, if these lawsuits pan out then it will cost us all dearly. This game will kill millions of jobs but the good news is lawyers will profit from it!


Brian

 

[annomander]

As far as I can tell, this is about Qualcomm already having a license from Motorola for a 3G patent and since Apple uses Qualcomm parts they are arguing that they are covered by that license.

Correct, they are being sued by Motorolla over that patent that they purchase from Qualcomm

Unfortunatly, it seems besides you nobody is actually interested in that fact just that they go on a tirade


The wierd thing is Bateluer posted it and it seems he's not even bothered to read it or comment on it just went off on a tangent

 

[Pliablemoose]

I think Apple is on the right track with this one actually and that it has merit, the domino effect from this case would clear up a few others.

 

[podspi]

I find it hard to believe Motorola missed something as obvious as that. Could be wrong,but I am sure the actual argument is a lot more.nuanced than it sounds here...

 

[annomander]

I find it hard to believe Motorola missed something as obvious as that. Could be wrong,but I am sure the actual argument is a lot more.nuanced than it sounds here...

Not only that

Judge Andreas Voss of the Mannheim Regional Court ruled that Motorola presented no evidence that Apple's actual implementation used the specific means of generating the pseudonoise sequence claimed in the patent. Merely arguing that the specification required generating the pseudonoise sequence was not sufficient to prove Apple infringed the patent, according to Voss.


They didnt even have any evidence!

 

[Mopetar]

I think Apple is on the right track with this one actually and that it has merit, the domino effect from this case would clear up a few others.

There are still a lot that it wouldn't affect at all. First of all, Apple only started using Qualcomm chips recently, so it doesn't cover any of their older devices, and Apple would be liable to pay Motorola for those infringements. Secondly, Motorola is asserting other patents that don't have anything to do with 3G standards so those cases will continue on as normal. Google has pretty much announced that they're going to carry on with Motorola's strategy, so the eventual merger isn't going to change things either.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Like I said, Apple may have started this fire but now everyone is going out to get some matches. In the end we the customer stand to lose choice and money while it will be Christmas time for lawyers.


Brian

 

[Pliablemoose]

Like I said, Apple may have started this fire but now everyone is going out to get some matches. In the end we the customer stand to lose choice and money while it will be Christmas time for lawyers.


Brian

That's not accurate, this stuff has been going on forever, and won't be ending any time soon.

 

[annomander]

That's not accurate, this stuff has been going on forever, and won't be ending any time soon.

Yep, if you go back to when the iPhone was first released it was actually Apple getting sued not the other way round. I believe Motorolla and Nokia was the first to lauch the lawyers.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Apple has had lawyers on speed dial forever! They go after anyone and everyone for anything and everything. Have Apple in your name and expect a call from there lawyers with a demand you stop using Apple in your name -- even if your use of Apple predates the existence of the Apple corp by decades.

Apples strategy is to box there competition out of the smart phone and tablet markets by patenting rounded rectangular slabs and by a host of other patent tricks designed not so much to protect legitimate innovation but long-standing design norms. They have spent hundreds of millions of USD and have had some success with this plan and anyone that owns a smart phone or tablet or someday might should be worried that Apples success in court will mean your only choice will be Apple whatever they charge or offer.

Yeah, Samsung and perhaps others have borrowed ideas from Apple in much the same way the all car makers borrow from each other. One day the SUV was born and before long everyone was selling SUV's. It should also be obvious the Apple has borrowed ideas from others and that would be fine were it not for the fact that once Apple was in the game they decided they own it and want everyone else to drop out of it.

The specific Qualcomm/Moto patents that are being talked about here are just one line in the sand and I expect this to get worse -- far worse.


Brian

 

[Mopetar]

Apples strategy is to box there competition out of the smart phone and tablet markets by patenting rounded rectangular slabs and by a host of other patent tricks designed not so much to protect legitimate innovation but long-standing design norms.

If this were true, they would have gone after Microsoft, Palm/HP (before they folded), and a number of other companies as well. It seems the only real problem that they have is with Android, a lot of which stems from Eric Schmidt's position on Apple's board and Steve Jobs's feelings of betrayal over Schmidt's actions at the time.

If Android had stuck with their early BlackBerry style at launch and only started moving toward's Apple's direction after that, who's to say what the situation would be like right now? Maybe Android as we know it now might not be as far along, but it also might not be getting clobbered with so many lawsuits.

I don't know how long Apple will continue down this path, or how far they'll take things in the end, but I doubt that they'll go after other companies' products once all of this is done.

 

[theeedude]

Apple is like Rambus on steroids.

 

[Mopetar]

Apple is like Rambus on steroids.

Rambus was much, much worse. They got their patented technology to be used by other companies and took part in discussions about new memory standards, but didn't commit to licensing those patents under reasonable terms. They also started patenting things that were being discussed at those meetings and started suing everyone for using those patents.

Apple may be overly litigious, but they haven't pulled half of the crap that Rambus has over the years. They've been so dickish that pretty much every regulatory agency has investigated them or found them guilty under various charges.

 

[DeathReborn]

Is it possible that the Motorola Qualcomm license only comes into play when a Qualcomm CPU is also used?

 

[Brian Stirling]

If this were true, they would have gone after Microsoft, Palm/HP (before they folded), and a number of other companies as well. It seems the only real problem that they have is with Android, a lot of which stems from Eric Schmidt's position on Apple's board and Steve Jobs's feelings of betrayal over Schmidt's actions at the time.

If Android had stuck with their early BlackBerry style at launch and only started moving toward's Apple's direction after that, who's to say what the situation would be like right now? Maybe Android as we know it now might not be as far along, but it also might not be getting clobbered with so many lawsuits.

I don't know how long Apple will continue down this path, or how far they'll take things in the end, but I doubt that they'll go after other companies' products once all of this is done.

Apple has experience with M$ and much of it wasn't pleasant for Apple. As long as Windows mobile remains a smaller player than even Bada why should Apple waste the time with them. Easier to go after companies like the Spanish tablet maker they figured would fold up without a fight than fight M$'s billions.


Brian

 

[theeedude]

Rambus was much, much worse. They got their patented technology to be used by other companies and took part in discussions about new memory standards, but didn't commit to licensing those patents under reasonable terms. They also started patenting things that were being discussed at those meetings and started suing everyone for using those patents.

Apple may be overly litigious, but they haven't pulled half of the crap that Rambus has over the years. They've been so dickish that pretty much every regulatory agency has investigated them or found them guilty under various charges.

Apple is far worse than Rambus. Rambus was bad, but ultimately it wanted a royalty, Apple wants to limit choice and competition in the smartphone market. Rambus has fairly detailed technical patents from the leading engineers in the fields, Stanford professors. Apple puts things like yeah, do some search thingy using some heuristic thingy we got dibs on all ways and all heuristic algorithms to do this thing, even though we have only actually implemented one. That's like saying we got dibs on any algorithm that uses math. Or slide to unlock, even though a Dutch court told them that there was prior art on that, they are still suing everyone, knowing they didn't invent it. Or square tablet with round corners.

 

[Mopetar]

Apple is far worse than Rambus. Rambus was bad, but ultimately it wanted a royalty.

Telling other companies not to use their stuff is somehow worse than getting a every single other company to use your patents under a false assumption that they'll become part of a standard and available under reasonable rates?

Apple wants to limit choice and competition in the smartphone market.

Not really. If they did, they'd be going after Microsoft and any number of other companies for other various mobile operating systems. Outside of design patent suits, which are entirely different bag of marbles, they've only targeted Android. As I've explained, this is likely do to the perceptions by Apple of Schmidt's actions while serving on Apple's board.

Apple merely wants to stop other companies from using what they believe is technology owned and developed by Apple. Whether or not the courts rule in favor of Apple is certainly debatable as are the merits of any individual claim. However, I feel as though you're making a statement that isn't supported by facts. Apple certainly hasn't won every case, but that have won several and the patents that they hold certainly seem to be valid. Your own claims are also horribly over generalized or specious.

You may certainly disagree with the rulings of courts or the patent process, if you want to, but you're seriously misrepresenting things that have been established as legal fact. For example, in a recent ruling a judge found that Motorola's implementation did not significantly differ from Apple's method. You can also read more about the slide-to-unlock case here as well as the patent itself, which is fairly specific. Furthermore, this is one ruling in one jurisdiction that does not apply to much else of the world. Also, as has been pointed out several times on this forum, design patents do not cover something as simple as a square tablet with rounded corners.

 

[theeedude]

Telling other companies not to use their stuff is somehow worse than getting a every single other company to use your patents under a false assumption that they'll become part of a standard and available under reasonable rates?

It's not their stuff. It's stuff they claimed was theirs in a patent.

Not really. If they did, they'd be going after Microsoft and any number of other companies for other various mobile operating systems. Outside of design patent suits, which are entirely different bag of marbles, they've only targeted Android. As I've explained, this is likely do to the perceptions by Apple of Schmidt's actions while serving on Apple's board.

Apple merely wants to stop other companies from using what they believe is technology owned and developed by Apple. Whether or not the courts rule in favor of Apple is certainly debatable as are the merits of any individual claim. However, I feel as though you're making a statement that isn't supported by facts. Apple certainly hasn't won every case, but that have won several and the patents that they hold certainly seem to be valid. Your own claims are also horribly over generalized or specious.

Yeah, like rounded corners. Invented at Apple 😀

You may certainly disagree with the rulings of courts or the patent process, if you want to, but you're seriously misrepresenting things that have been established as legal fact. For example, in a recent ruling a judge found that Motorola's implementation did not significantly differ from Apple's method. You can also read more about the slide-to-unlock case here as well as the patent itself, which is fairly specific. Furthermore, this is one ruling in one jurisdiction that does not apply to much else of the world. Also, as has been pointed out several times on this forum, design patents do not cover something as simple as a square tablet with rounded corners.

FOSS is a biased blog. His main thesis is that Android is hosed, and all the posts steer in that direction. A Dutch judge ruled that Neonode had slide to unlock before Apple and threw out a similar claim. Yet Apple is venue shopping for a dumber judge to take its side.
As far as multi-touch patent, here is what they are claiming:

"1. A computing device, comprising: a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including: instructions for detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display; instructions for applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device; and instructions for processing the command; wherein the one or more heuristics comprise: a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; and a next item heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items. "

Note it's not a specific algorithm. They are claiming they got dibs on all heuristic algorithms that apply to solving this problem. They aren't claiming their specific solution, they are claiming all solutions to this problem. And this is what they want to use to limit competition in the phone market. This would be like Ford patenting a "vehicle that moves passengers without using horses."

 

[LikeLinus]

Not really. If they did, they'd be going after Microsoft and any number of other companies for other various mobile operating systems. Outside of design patent suits, which are entirely different bag of marbles, they've only targeted Android. As I've explained, this is likely do to the perceptions by Apple of Schmidt's actions while serving on Apple's board.

Or it could be that Android/Google is their biggest competitor and overtaking their market share at an incredible pace. Apple doesn't care about Microsoft, RIM and the likes because they are a non-threat at this point. But be damn sure that if Microsoft had huge success with their mobile platform, Apple would have their lawyers lined up to sue.

 

[Mopetar]

Or it could be that Android/Google is their biggest competitor and overtaking their market share at an incredible pace. Apple doesn't care about Microsoft, RIM and the likes because they are a non-threat at this point. But be damn sure that if Microsoft had huge success with their mobile platform, Apple would have their lawyers lined up to sue.

I don't completely buy that argument. While it's true that Android is obviously Apple's biggest competitor, there's no real indication that Apple has lost sales due to Android. Even when Android was undergoing explosive growth, it didn't even cost Apple market share, as that growth was almost entirely at the expense of RIM, Nokia, and Windows Mobile.

Furthermore, even if Android didn't exist, it seems unlikely that Apple's sales rate would greatly exceed their current numbers. For the first several months of their devices they're generally in short supply. Unless Apple could also manufacture more devices, it's unlikely that they could go on to sell more. You could argue that an absence of Android would give Apple a larger market share, but it wouldn't actually give them additional profit. Much like how at one point Apple controlled nearly 100% of the tablet market, but it did not help them sell any additional iPads.

One could also turn your argument around and say that Apple doesn't care about RIM, Microsoft, et al. as they don't feel those companies have infringed on their IP. Jobs essentially said that he felt Android was a stolen product and that they would go after it. He didn't mention anything about those other companies, therefor a find it unlikely that Apple would go after them in any capacity.

I could obviously be proven wrong in the future if Apple does go after those companies as well, but for the reasons I've listed, I don't feel as though it's likely.

 

[Mopetar]

It's not their stuff. It's stuff they claimed was theirs in a patent.

Hence the ensuing court cases to determine whether or not the patents in question are valid. If Apple were not responsible for said inventions, it shouldn't be difficult to find prior art for those patents. That in many cases, no such prior art has been presented would seem to lend credibility to the idea that none exists.

Yeah, like rounded corners. Invented at Apple 😀

Once again, a gross oversimplification. I don't understand why people continue to even use this argument.

FOSS is a biased blog. His main thesis is that Android is hosed, and all the posts steer in that direction.

It takes more than that to show bias. The author generally covers all cases, whether Apple wins or loses and presents his own analysis along with legal facts. It's a fact that a judge ruled against Motorola. Whether the author of that blog feels it's a good ruling or even agrees with the judges interpretation is mostly irrelevant.

The author also uses an Android device as his phone, so I somewhat doubt that he's some kind of "fanboy" that's only interested in painting a lopsided picture of the situation. Once again, just because you disagree with his interpretation of results, is not sufficient evidence for bias.

A Dutch judge ruled that Neonode had slide to unlock before Apple and threw out a similar claim. Yet Apple is venue shopping for a dumber judge to take its side.

One can look at the two implementations and judge for oneself whether or not they are the same. Also note that Apple's implementation of slide-to-unlock is different than example presented in that case. This is also why I've maintained that it's utterly trivial to get around this patent so I don't see why the companies being hit with this patent don't just make a few simple modifications to get around that patent.

As far as multi-touch patent, here is what they are claiming

. . .

That's the first claim, of many, among other descriptions, figures, and drawings. Given the length of the patent, I somewhat doubt that you've read it in its entirety. If that patent were as you suggest it is, it would be fairly trivial to defeat in court.

 

[MrX8503]

If Its true that Motorola is trying to double dip by charging both Qualcomm and Apple then Moto is in the wrong here.

I don't see how the justice system fails here like the OP suggests.