Apple Wins Limited Injunction Against Motorola In Germany

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]a) since when does the patent office knows anything about tech. Tons of people are already stated the ludicrous state of patents.b, c) Apple already lost a case where this patent was deemed invalid. The Judge stated that the patent was not inventive and the patent had already been implemented by the N1m, and that the animation was not enough for Apple to be entitled to that patent. We'll have to wait for the end of this court to find out.d) Slide to unlock is basically the standard way almost all smartphones unlock, so that patent should be a FRAND patent.[/citation]

God, you get more and more moronic.

a) Did I say the patent office 'knows anything about tech'. Try no. Try reading next time. Journey back to what I ACTUALLY SAID - that they disagree with you. Learn, for gods sake.

b, c) Again, did you even read what was said? LEARN ENGLISH. Look at what I said. I explained what the patent is for, and I said that the court will find the patent invalid if it agrees with you about prior art. Why the hell are you banging on about a decision in another case which does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to contradict ANYTHING I said. Honestly, I think a brain escapes you? And for what it's worth, your statement is ridiculously stupid anyway since we've already seen that different courts can reach different conclusions.

d) Slide to unlock is NOT a FRAND patent, it's only the 'standard way' for smartphones to unlock because Android copied Apple - who created this particular version of the slide-to-unlock. Again, you need to learn that the patent is NOT 'slide-to-unlock' generally - it's for a SPECIFIC implementation thereof. Similarly, just because YOU believe it SHOULD be a FRAND patent, doesn't mean it IS. The FACT IS it isn't, and saying it should be FRAND just because Android got in trouble for ripping it off Apple is pathetic.
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
0
And since nothing I said has been contradicted in ANY WAY (as usual for Vladislaus), I REPEAT:

a) The patent was granted, so obviously the patent office disagrees with you.
b) The patent is NOT for 'slide to unlock' - it's a specific patent for slide to unlock which includes a visual feedback on the contact point - which the Neonode N1M didn't have.
c) If you're right then the court will find the patent to be invalid.
d) It's still an argument over a normal patent, which is far better than over FRAND patents.
e) I even wrote 'while questionable' in my own post.
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
582
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]God, you get more and more moronic.a) Did I say the patent office 'knows anything about tech'. Try no. Try reading next time. Journey back to what I ACTUALLY SAID - that they disagree with you. Learn, for gods sake.b, c) Again, did you even read what was said? LEARN ENGLISH. Look at what I said. I explained what the patent is for, and I said that the court will find the patent invalid if it agrees with you about prior art. Why the hell are you banging on about a decision in another case which does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to contradict ANYTHING I said. Honestly, I think a brain escapes you? And for what it's worth, your statement is ridiculously stupid anyway since we've already seen that different courts can reach different conclusions.d) Slide to unlock is NOT a FRAND patent, it's only the 'standard way' for smartphones to unlock because Android copied Apple - who created this particular version of the slide-to-unlock. Again, you need to learn that the patent is NOT 'slide-to-unlock' generally - it's for a SPECIFIC implementation thereof. Similarly, just because YOU believe it SHOULD be a FRAND patent, doesn't mean it IS. The FACT IS it isn't, and saying it should be FRAND just because Android got in trouble for ripping it off Apple is pathetic.And since nothing I said has been contradicted in ANY WAY (as usual for Vladislaus), I REPEAT:a) The patent was granted, so obviously the patent office disagrees with you.b) The patent is NOT for 'slide to unlock' - it's a specific patent for slide to unlock which includes a visual feedback on the contact point - which the Neonode N1M didn't have.c) If you're right then the court will find the patent to be invalid.d) It's still an argument over a normal patent, which is far better than over FRAND patents.e) I even wrote 'while questionable' in my own post.[/citation]
Insults are the response of desperate men. When you have learned to have a discussion like civilized men I will respond to you.
 

Camikazi

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
745
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]SoiledBottom[/nom]Anyone remember the movie "Judge Dredd" with Sylvester Stallone ?The fast food wars was won by Taco Bell, thus making all restaurants Taco Bells.Is this the beginning of the technology wars where all the tech companies become one big company ?The future is not gonna be bright if all we have is Taco Bell and Apple.[/citation]
At least you got the actor right, but the movie was Demolition Man not Judge Dredd.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
778
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]a) ... If you're right then the court will find the patent to be invalid....[/citation]

Wake up. In this country 'being right' and having a court agree are two VERY different things !

Remember O.J. anyone ?

 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
0
Here we go, watcha and his 50 useless posts again banging out the same old tired broken record
...
You realise it doesn't actually matter if you are right or if Apple are fantastic, you personally get up everyones nose
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Insults are the response of desperate men. When you have learned to have a discussion like civilized men I will respond to you.[/citation]

Irrelevances are the response of illogical men. When you have learned to make even one relevant point which contradicts anything I've said, I'll treat you with respect.
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Here we go, watcha and his 50 useless posts again banging out the same old tired broken record...You realise it doesn't actually matter if you are right or if Apple are fantastic, you personally get up everyones nose[/citation]

Everyone? Or one guy who can't speak English and two dumb Apple haters in Beayn and Back_By_Demand?

Of course logic tends to rub illogical people up the wrong way.
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Wake up. In this country 'being right' and having a court agree are two VERY different things !Remember O.J. anyone ?[/citation]

I know what you mean, in that courts can obviously make mistakes. The difficulty is that it's very hard to prove they made a mistake, certainly when it comes to patents. In general I would say that the legal system and courts have more of a relevant and informed say on what is 'right' than people on this forum, many of whom didn't even realise that this patent wasn't for slide-to-unlock generally.

A lot of the problem in cases like this (slide-to-unlock, Galaxy Tab ban) is that a lot of the posters don't understand the details of the case. People comparing the Neonode obviously haven't read the patent terminology, which specifically includes a symbol tracking the contact point of your finger (which the Neonode doesn't have). Some people still believe that the Galaxy tab was banned for being minimalist and having round corners. Just a little research would clear it all up but instead some people jump to premature conclusions.

A lot of people also think that Apple suing over something they have patented is as bad as suing over FRAND patents - again there is a big gap in what people grasp. FRAND patents are always the choice of the inventor - they get to decide if they want to sign the FRAND agreement, and do so in order to protect their best interests. Take the 3G Motorola case, for example, they signed a FRAND agreement, by choice, which stated that they would license the technology on FRAND terms (Fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory) and then proceeded to sue Apple for above-FRAND rates for it. Not only that, they refuse to license it at FRAND rates going forward, and sought to have devices banned as a result (none of which is required to obtain any financial damages the court awards). These cases are far, far worse, because FRAND is intended to help companies develop 'standards' for interoperability, and these particular FRAND patents are required for every single modern smartphone. To start trying to seek injunctions (bans) for these patents is anti-competitive and illegal and Samsung is already in trouble for this.

Wheras Microsoft and Apple have both come out and stated they will never seek injunctions over FRAND devices, Google has made no such commitment, and this is a far bigger abuse then arguments over normal patents which are not required at all for a device to function.

People suggesting that 'slide-to-unlock' 'should be' FRAND obviously don't understand the VOLUNTARY nature of FRAND patents or that they are intended to help develop standards, which Slide-To-Unlock has nothing to do with. Similarly, people confusing a disagreement over 'FRAND rates' as Apple copying, clearly failed to realise that the same technology is licensed in pretty much every smartphone - so nothing to do with copying.

Which is where I come in - I try to make it very clear what the reality of the situation is, in posts such as this.
 

irh_1974

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2010
140
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]I know what you mean, in that courts can obviously make mistakes. The difficulty is that it's very hard to prove they made a mistake, certainly when it comes to patents. In general I would say that the legal system and courts have more of a relevant and informed say on what is 'right' than people on this forum, many of whom didn't even realise that this patent wasn't for slide-to-unlock generally. A lot of the problem in cases like this (slide-to-unlock, Galaxy Tab ban) is that a lot of the posters don't understand the details of the case. People comparing the Neonode obviously haven't read the patent terminology, which specifically includes a symbol tracking the contact point of your finger (which the Neonode doesn't have). Some people still believe that the Galaxy tab was banned for being minimalist and having round corners. Just a little research would clear it all up but instead some people jump to premature conclusions.A lot of people also think that Apple suing over something they have patented is as bad as suing over FRAND patents - again there is a big gap in what people grasp. FRAND patents are always the choice of the inventor - they get to decide if they want to sign the FRAND agreement, and do so in order to protect their best interests. Take the 3G Motorola case, for example, they signed a FRAND agreement, by choice, which stated that they would license the technology on FRAND terms (Fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory) and then proceeded to sue Apple for above-FRAND rates for it. Not only that, they refuse to license it at FRAND rates going forward, and sought to have devices banned as a result (none of which is required to obtain any financial damages the court awards). These cases are far, far worse, because FRAND is intended to help companies develop 'standards' for interoperability, and these particular FRAND patents are required for every single modern smartphone. To start trying to seek injunctions (bans) for these patents is anti-competitive and illegal and Samsung is already in trouble for this.Wheras Microsoft and Apple have both come out and stated they will never seek injunctions over FRAND devices, Google has made no such commitment, and this is a far bigger abuse then arguments over normal patents which are not required at all for a device to function.People suggesting that 'slide-to-unlock' 'should be' FRAND obviously don't understand the VOLUNTARY nature of FRAND patents or that they are intended to help develop standards, which Slide-To-Unlock has nothing to do with. Similarly, people confusing a disagreement over 'FRAND rates' as Apple copying, clearly failed to realise that the same technology is licensed in pretty much every smartphone - so nothing to do with copying.Which is where I come in - I try to make it very clear what the reality of the situation is, in posts such as this.[/citation]
 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]When you grow up, you wont need to avoid the discussion entirely.[/citation]
I thought you were above the name calling, you are no different than anyone else, GTFO TROLL
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I thought you were above the name calling, you are no different than anyone else, GTFO TROLL[/citation]

Since when is 'grow up' name calling. It's good that you make a mockery of irh_1974 by describing his actions as trolling though.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you. And good response to the discussion, by the way.
 

jgutz2006

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2009
120
0
18,630
0
Simple resolution, Samsung increases the price for every one of the new ipad3 screens a dollar and then put that money to the lawyers and essentially apple is paying for samsungs defense to their own suits!
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
778
0
18,930
0
One of the problems with the patent system is that you can get a patent not only for a new technology, but also for how the technology is used.

I am sure nobody here has a problem for a patent on a new kind of touch screen.
But then getting a patent on how you touch the screen to activate it, or the device it belongs to; that is not only silly but against common sense.
You would want all devices use the same actions for basic functions so it is easier for the consumer to use them.

Imagine cars did not have the same arrangement of clutch, brake and accelerator pedals for instance so the companies would not have to pay a patent fee for whoever came up with the current layout. (and for our young readers; yes, there are cars that have '3' pedals [GRIN] which can be very handy up north in the winter).

 

psiboy

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2007
25
0
18,580
0
Looks like Apple will spend all it's money suing everybody and then die the death of a morally bankrupt company that it is.
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
582
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Why go after Motorola instead of the chieftain, Google? Google's the one committing the worst copyright infringements.[/citation]
Apple is know suing the Galaxy Nexus, we'll have to wait and see what happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Streaming Video & TVs 3
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 4
H Streaming Video & TVs 5
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
M Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
C Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
tomsguideUS Streaming Video & TVs 2
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 47

ASK THE COMMUNITY