Apple Wins Limited Injunction Against Motorola In Germany

Put ALL of the lawyers in jail. If they send more lawyers, put them in jail too.

Man they shouldnt let apple do anything but sell and make.

Suing like this will just start a retard war, in the end the customer gets bent over for more cash and a crappy version of what should have been an awesome device because some company couldnt handle competition so they sued. >.>

Dear world.

Please fix your law systems and stop the obvious anti-competitive nature of Apple who DID NOT INVENT a lot of the things they have patented which in itself should be against the law.

Dialing numbers from E-Mails has been available since 2003 and maybe even before, Apple didn't even make phones back then.

Unlock screens have also been around since at least 2004+ (My first smart phone, HP iPAQ) so that's no excuse for Apple. Courts should not allow that either..

Sincerely,
Everyone against Apple's anti-competitive nature.

Cost of Iphone, 50% = hardware+software, 30% Apple's pocket, 20% = lawyer

For the record, Apple has (along with Microsoft as mentioned) also confirmed that they will not seek injunctions over FRAND patents.

Google is the only major player who has not yet committed to not abusing FRAND patents.

The 'Slide to unlock', while questionable, is at least nothing to do with FRAND so I believe the article shouldn't confuse the two.

The patent system needs a major overhaul. The sooner the better. If any of these companies can prove that they had an idea that was *not* based on any prior ideas, then let them go ahead and patent. But the biggest patent troll right now is Apple, a company whose figurehead was known for saying that he promoted "shameless theft of ideas". It's time to put some sense back into the IP realm.

'Copying ideas' is not the same thing as infringing patents.

Learn the difference.

Google is the only major player who has not yet committed to not abusing FRAND patents.

The problem is that Apple didn't invented slide to unlocked, it existed long before the iPhone.

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.

But I can live with Taco Bell if I absolutely must....

That was Demolition man and in non US DVD/BluRay they replaced (dubbed and digitally altered logos)Taco Bell with Pizza hut.

Wonder if Apple has a patent on using sea shells instead of toilet paper?

*cough*demolition man*cough*

Apple is only making my blood boil at higher temperature with this nonsene!

Big difference between restaurants and tech, and I personally never thought that bunk in Judge Dredd was anywhere NEAR reasonable to expect in the future.

One restaurant? Hell no!

FFS - someone slap apple! You need patents because it protects the "little guy" with an idea but not now-days.

Now if you have teams of lawyers it doesn't make a difference because they just find loop holes all over the place and sue you - ridiculous and childish Apple

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.

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.

Typical apple patent-trolling... did you all see Apple milking Whitney Huston's death too?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar [...] death.html

Somehow this apple news didn't make it here...

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.

Insults are the response of desperate men. When you have learned to have a discussion like civilized men I will respond to you.

At least you got the actor right, but the movie was Demolition Man not Judge Dredd.

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

Remember O.J. anyone ?

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

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.

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.

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.

When you grow up, you wont need to avoid the discussion entirely.

I thought you were above the name calling, you are no different than anyone else, GTFO TROLL