Motorola Wins Injunction Against Apple's iCloud in Germany

[irish_adam]

do u have a source to say that apple offered FRAND rates in 2007?

i changed my line of reasoning because i cba to actually sift through the whole orange book standard. You could be right but as the defence that they actively sort a license has only every helped a case once (according to my previous source) its hardly the strongest leg to stand on. If Apple had made the offer in 2007 the court couldnt have come to the ruling it did. They reason they won is because Mannheim court allows patent holders to tie a FRAND license for the future to an unconditional recognition of liability for past damages, which means the court must have recognised that Apple used the patent before it made the offer

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]irish_adam[/nom]do u have a source to say that apple offered FRAND rates in 2007?i changed my line of reasoning because i cba to actually sift through the whole orange book standard. You could be right but as the defence that they actively sort a license has only every helped a case once (according to my previous source) its hardly the strongest leg to stand on. If Apple had made the offer in 2007 the court couldnt have come to the ruling it did. They reason they won is because Mannheim court allows patent holders to tie a FRAND license for the future to an unconditional recognition of liability for past damages, which means the court must have recognised that Apple used the patent before it made the offer[/citation]

Do you have a source that the Motorola license terms offered in 2007 were 'fair and reasonable?'

A license offer from Motorola at unreasonable terms could constitute an implied rejection of any Apple offer at reasonable rates. Apple says it was willing to pay the normal FRAND rates, but discussions were halted due to the Motorola unreasonable license. It's clearly debatable, which is why there is a court case in the first place, and why Apple are appealing.

Later on, when Motorola instigated the legal case, Apple then recognised that there were clearly past infringements, but claims that this was due to the unfair license offer put forward by Motorola. Furthermore, if they are committing to pay FRAND rates going forward, they wanted to protect their right to challenge the validity of the patent (which is still ongoing I believe) and they also wanted to ensure that the past infringement would be at FRAND rates. They maintain that they were never refusing to pay the FRAND rates, and that's why they want to protect this.

While I can see the argument that infringement could potentially mean that slightly above-FRAND rates could be charged, this should only be the case if the defendant refused to pay the FRAND rates at the time (and of course, knew about the patent - which I'm sure Apple did in this case). In cases where the defendant was not given the opportunity to pay FRAND rates, or did not know about the patent, I think this should not apply. Either way, it's not really covered by case law and this case has a long way to go before they all decide what happens, the law is being defined by the case rather than the other way around. The issue, of course, is that patent holders could deliberately not reveal the patent infringement or offer too high terms (as in this case, according to Apple), forcing the later court case to revolve around 'past infringement' and thus at any rates - unreasonable or not. What is certain, though, is that Motorola will not be given the right to refuse to patent the FRAND patent going forward, because FRAND patents by their very nature are necessary for the majority of technology devices.

 

[watcha]

refuse to license*

 

[irish_adam]

Under the orange book standard Apple they can't just hold a FRAND defense against a patent holder who's suing them. Instead, they have to proactively make efforts to procure a license on FRAND terms by making an irrevocable, binding offer to the patent holder and by posting a bond for ongoing royalties.

This is something Apple didnt do straight away which is why the court allowed this injunction. The offer that apple are using as a defence is one that they put together after motorola took them to court. If they had offered to pay a fair and reasonable rate back in 2007 then surely they could use that as a defence and would not be liable for the injunction currently imposed. If they just disagreed with the terms given and ignored motorola then it is in the wrong as it did not proactively seek an agreement

ignorance has never been a defence in a court of law and as Motorola contacted Apple in 2007 you cannot claim that Apple was not aware of the patent

 

[watcha]

Did you even read what I said? My point, in every one of the past.... 4/5 comments? has been about the fact that Apple were prepared to pay the reasonable rates all along, and they claim they proactively offered those rates. Motorola put the brakes on that by offering a proposal which was NOT reasonable, something which is arguably in breach of their own obligations. Thus, Apple can claim the FRAND defence, hence them actually claiming this in the legal case. Clearly the Apple lawyers disagree with you.

Apple made an ADDITIONAL offer once they were taken to court which met all of the criteria, yes. The 'surely they could use that as a defence' is exactly what Apple claim - and exactly what their lawyers said and will continue to say at appeal.

Again, regarding ignorance, did you even listen to what I said? I said, and I quote:

'and of course, knew about the patent - which I'm sure Apple did in this case'

to which you rant on about Apple being aware of the patent? Please, read.

There is a reason Motorola has to point out that they contacted Apple, did that ever occur to you? Why would it be relevant if ignorance was not relevant? And it's not about ignorance being a defence, it's about ignorance being a relevant factor when considering paying damages for being late, despite being prepared to pay FRAND rates. But as I already explained to you, I already told you that clearly Apple did know about it in this case, I was talking about the problems with the approach YOU suggested, that past infringements could incur costs above FRAND rates - as this would encourage the FRAND patent holders to deliberately keep their patents or belief of patent infringements secret, until much much later where they could charge far more.

 

[irish_adam]

BUT IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE THE COURT WOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE INJUNCTION!

you have no proof at all that apple were willing to pay all along, if they did have proof then there would have been no injuction. An injunction on sales is only imposed if the accused has not followed the rules set down in the orange book standard. Motorola has to prove that Apple was in the wrong of the case would have proceeded with no injuction

 

[irish_adam]

or*

 

[watcha]

Now now, little boy, don't get angry.

Courts decisions get overturned all the time. Clearly Apple is appealing, and believes that the court will remove the injunction. The lesson - courts don't always get it right first time, there is a whole load of evidence of this which proves your capital letters completely illogical

You have no proof that Motorola provided an offer which was fair and reasonable. The case law of the Orange Book does not cater for any situation where the licensor provides an offer which is unreasonable, and thus it can be distinguished, even viewed as a hostile uncompetitive act. Motorola could arguably be seen to be being anti-competitive purely on the basis of the unreasonable offer, since they are legally obliged to license on reasonable terms. Just as the Orange Book set a precedent, this case could too when it goes to appeal. Any injunction can and often is appealed, and it is not binding as yet - the injunction is not active. Furthermore, injunctions can ultimately turn out to be incorrect which is why Motorola has to put money down to cover damages. Motorola has to prove that Apple was in the wrong - yes, the mistake you make is in thinking that this is over, when this case has a long way to go. Motorola has to also prove Apple was in the wrong at appeal, which hasn't happened yet.

And whether or not they even get the injunction, the hostile and uncompetitive act of seeking an injunction rather than a simple decision for damages (license fees) may be later reviewed by the EU, as has been stated. Indeed, many publications believe that this is inevitable, so this case is far from over.

 

[irish_adam]

i'm not saying it is over and i wasnt angry i was just trying to highlight the fact that i was using facts and your making stuff up. Motorola didnt need to make a fair and reasonable offer Apple did, had they offered an alternative to Motorola's offer then there would be no injuction. The proof i have is that a court of law looked at all the evidence and has deemed apple to be in the wrong. Your evidence is that you dont know what that evidence was therefore can make stuff up like you were stating for a while that Apple had made an offer in 2007 (which cannot be correct) and question things that i'm sure the highly paid Apple lawyers would have thought of and raised raised with the court.

you have no evidence to back your claim that motorola is abusing the law which is supposed to be my point. Your just assuming that they did not offer a fair and reasonable license to start with, you have no proof of this so i dont see how you can claim such a statement.

It isnt over no which means you cant slag off a company that far from being seen as guilty atm seems to be in the right. If in the end you are right in teh end then you can accuse them of abusing FRAND law but untill then maybe you should leave those statements to those that actually have ALL the facts

 

[makaveli316]

I enjoy these news as much as a nice breakfast in the morning.
And thank God this site isn't italian, cause i got banned on an italian forum, just because my opinion was different than "oh i love apple, yeah".

 

[watcha]

'Motorola didnt need to make a fair and reasonable offer Apple did, had they offered an alternative to Motorola's offer then there would be no injuction. The proof i have is that a court of law looked at all the evidence and has deemed apple to be in the wrong'

Actually, Motorola does have a legal obligation to not overcharge for FRAND patents, which they arguably did. And we've already proven that a courts decision does not constitute proof, since there is an appeal process and the verdict can change. We also have no proof that Apple didn't make a reasonable offer.

'question things that i'm sure the highly paid Apple lawyers would have thought of and raised raised with the court.'

The same Apple lawyers who agree with me entirely and as such claimed the FRAND defence? Yes, they do know the facts much better than you, and they are much more highly paid than you, and yes they agree with me. A court not agreeing on first case does not prove them wrong.

'you have no evidence to back your claim that motorola is abusing the law which is supposed to be my point. Your just assuming that they did not offer a fair and reasonable license to start with, you have no proof of this so i dont see how you can claim such a statement.'

As I have continually stated, Apple has claimed that they didn't make fair and reasonable terms in their offer. You have not proved that this Apple claim is not true. The evidence they have is clearly internal and so of course I can't prove it, just as you can't disprove it - but that doesn't mean it's not true. You don't see how I can claim such a statement, but Apple lawyers DID and DO claim it, they maintain that line of argument.

'If in the end you are right in teh end then you can accuse them of abusing FRAND law but untill then maybe you should leave those statements to those that actually have ALL the facts'

Lets be honest - you know none of the facts. You claim that I am wrong in claiming the deal proposed by Motorola was not reasonable, yet provide no evidence that it wasn't. You also have no knowledge of the license arrangements which went on between Motorola and Apple, or what was offered. I have continually been putting forward the Apple case as a possibility, you have denied it. That's the failing, with you. It remains a possibility and even if Motorola eventually win the case I will maintain that they are abusing their FRAND patent and will potentially be investigated by the EU. You're slagging off a company that has NOT been proven to be guilty yet either, so now you're also a hypocrite. And clearly, the only people who have 'all the facts' are not you - but the facts don't change any of my arguments, they only change yours. I have continually explained to you what claims Apple is making and how they could easily be true, and if true, would lead them to a successful appeal. Whether or not they actually turn out to be the case is completely irrelevant to my point, but real facts could absolutely prove you wrong.

 

[ericburnby]

Regardless of who's right and wrong, the bottom line is this: Apple and Motorola will settle and it will be business as usual. Just like it was with Apple vs Nokia last year.

That is, until Judge Posner rules on the Apple vs Motorola case in Illinois, which has the possibility to be infintely more costly to Motorola than this German case is to Apple.

 

[silver565]

So pleased to see this. Karma is biting Apple in the ass!

 

[beayn]

irish_adam, you probably don't know, but you have been arguing with the great and noble Apple's most die-hard fan on the entire internet. Not only does he believe 100% of Apple advertising, he also thinks Apple is so undeniably awesome and so infallible that anything they make that has a problem is just a result of user error. That and their products are so utterly unique and so completely innovative that the problems will just go away through divine evolution.

This is a company who in his eyes is divine and without fault. Nothing they do is ever wrong. Nothing they make is short of 150% the best. Nothing compares, nothing.

And he *NEVER* makes mistakes. *cough*

Oh, he also has never posted on a non-apple related article on Tom's.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Apple contends that the licensing offered by Motorola is not fair or reasonable, an entirely subjective thing.It has NOT been decided by the courts yet whether this is the case or not[/citation]
Apparently it's not subjective to Judge Andreas Voss, he just allowed Motorola to have an injunction if it wanted one. Decision has been made.
[citation][nom]irish_adam[/nom]Apple has already admitted its liable to pay for past infringement because it was included in their offer, if Apple didnt think the terms were fair why did it not take Motorola to court over it? why has it admitted it is liable for past infringement?[/citation]
Yeah admiting you were in infrigement is a big no-no, never goes down well in a case that is about infringement.
...
I think Apple needs a new lawyer, the trick here is to flat-out dent any wrongdoing even in the fact of overwhelming and incontavertible evidence. Maybe Watcha should Apply to be an Apple lawyer, he's good at that sort of thing.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]irish_adam, you probably don't know, but you have been arguing with the great and noble Apple's most die-hard fan on the entire internet. Not only does he believe 100% of Apple advertising, he also thinks Apple is so undeniably awesome and so infallible that anything they make that has a problem is just a result of user error. That and their products are so utterly unique and so completely innovative that the problems will just go away through divine evolution.This is a company who in his eyes is divine and without fault. Nothing they do is ever wrong. Nothing they make is short of 150% the best. Nothing compares, nothing.And he *NEVER* makes mistakes. *cough*Oh, he also has never posted on a non-apple related article on Tom's.[/citation]
I'm glad i'm not the only one who see's through this ass-clown, here is an individual who has been a member 2 year longer than I have and yet amazingly has 5 time less posts, but if you look where he has posted (as you rightly spotted, only in Apple articles) he bangs out at least a dozen posts ranting on like he has copy/pasted "War & Peace" into it.
...
Crank, I would advise just to ignore but it is so much more fun just to annoy him

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Now now, little boy, don't get angry[/citation]
Is that what you say to the alter boys too?

 

[jdwii]

Why does this make me so happy?

 

[house70]

@irish_adam: dude, your logic is as effective as it is correct, you got +1000 here.
And good job for pointing out the invented arguments there; he just turned into a condescending little pr1ck when he realized his logic does not stand. FYI, you argued with the greatest apple troll on this forum, as other users here pointed that out. Funny how he claimed he doesn't make mistakes, then he quotes the wrong bit...
this was fun to read, but for your sanity, try to ignore trolls like this. They'll never see the reasoning of others, unless it leads to the same result as their own.

 

[unther]

It seems to be a very good time to be a patent lawyer these days.