| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Google's Motorola files new patent case against Apple |
| By Thom Holwerda, submitted by C on 2012-08-21 22:04:44 |
| "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? |
|
| Importing? |
| By darknexus on 2012-08-21 22:29:26 |
|
> 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. |
 - Score: 2 |
| Comment by shmerl |
| By shmerl on 2012-08-21 23:04:54 |
|
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 |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by shmerl |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-08-21 23:16:17 |
|
> 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/Sma... Rearrange the following words to make a well known saying: A Man Drowning Straw Clutching At A :) |
| - Score: -1 |
| RE: Importing? |
| By kenji on 2012-08-21 23:22:21 |
| Manufacturing origin is what matters as the physical item must pass through borders. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[2]: Comment by shmerl |
| By andydread on 2012-08-21 23:45:58 |
|
> > 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/Sma... 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. |
| - Score: 7 |
| Motorola |
| By Lorin on 2012-08-22 00:00:12 |
|
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. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Comment by shmerl |
| By JAlexoid on 2012-08-22 00:50:08 |
| I applaud you for reading PatentlyApple!!! |
| - Score: 2 |
| Explanation |
| By Shane on 2012-08-22 01:19:06 |
|
"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. |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE: Motorola |
| By dvhh on 2012-08-22 03:13:48 |
| Have any evidences to backup those accusations of judge corruption. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Motorola |
| By Lorin on 2012-08-22 05:13:03 |
| 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. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |