Motorola has been awarded an injunction against Apple's iCloud on the same day that Apple announced it would be temporarily pulling several models of iPhones and iPads from its German online store.
Over the last year, we've grown used to hearing about Apple's patent disputes around the world. We've even seen Samsung forced to pull its products thanks to an Apple injunction. However, today brings a different kind of news regarding Apple's many ongoing patent litigation disputes: Motorola was this week awarded a permanent injunction against Apple's iCloud in German courts.
According to FOSS Patents, Judge Andreas Voss today issued a permanent injunction against the cloud-based service and any devices that use it in response to a claim Motorola filed in April of 2011. The injunction is permanent, but it's worth noting that it is only "preliminarily enforceable," which means Apple can appeal if it wants to (and, let's face it, it probably will).
FOSS reports that if Motorola wishes to enforce the injunction now, it will be liable for damages incurred as a result of premature enforcement of an improperly-granted injunction. For this reason, the company must post a €100 million bond if it wants to enforce the injunction now, before Apple appeals. This figure is in no way indicative of the damages Motorola might have to pay (those would be determined at a later stage if the injunction is overturned following an appeal). Instead, FOSS Patents describes it as "just the amount the court believes Motorola should guarantee" in the event that Apple takes this decision to the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court and is victorious.
In other news, Apple on Friday pulled the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and all 3G/UMTS-capable iPads from its German website after an unsuccessful appeal against a December ruling in Motorola's favor. It's thought to be a coincidence that Apple's pulling of the products in Germany comes at the same time as another injunction in Motorola's favor. Additionally, FOSS Patents reports that this move is only temporary, as Apple has since won a temporary suspension of the enforcement of the injunction in question and plans to put those products back online as soon as possible.
Head on over to FOSS patents for the full story on both issues.
And just like that, the BBC is reporting that Apple's exhortations have been heard, and the ban has been lifted. Details are few, but Cupertino had this to say about this latest turn of events:
"All iPad and iPhone models will be back on sale through Apple's online store in Germany shortly."
Apple needs to get into their heads that when threatened by competition, make better products by innovating; but instead they resort to suing the competition for having a device that might look like theirs. Seriously?? The label SAMSUNG is clearly on the front of the device, how much more similar could they be?
If you rip off a device, does adding your name to it make it OK
No idea why such a thing is patentable. Software patents need to go.
It isn't patentable, really. It's a FRAND patent, Motorola just hasn't offered 'fair and reasonable' license terms to Apple yet.
But it has to legally. Just more FRAND abuse like Samsung tried.
no your wrong the patent for the push email service is not a FRAND patent and they dont have to let apple use it at all.
The other patent was a FRAND patent (the one that got the apple stuff banned) however Apple refused to pay the fair fee they offered a few years ago so now they have to agree to a settlement for those years not paid before they get to use the patent legally
Irish Adam? Please.
I don't make mistakes. And you're* wrong, not me.
The trial regarding the patent began in November and was just adjudicated today.
The terms were not immediately announced, but its presumed that Apple will be given the chance to pay a bond and prevent the injunction, while Motorola will have to pay a bond if it wants to enforce the injunction.
Judge Andreas Voss made the ruling, which, if it passes the bonding stage, will likely force Apple to kill push-email functionality in order to keep the iCloud and MobileMe services active in Germany. This means that i-devices with 3G modems would have to return to pulling emails from the server at regular intervals, a slight setback which means you may not be updated as quickly with an important email.
Apple reportedly did not contend in the trial that the patent was covered under FRAND. Instead it tried to narrow the scope of the patent to allow iCloud to appear sufficiently different so as not to infringe. This approach basically failed in the lower court.
http://www.dailytech.com/Germany+Bans+Apples+iCloud+iPhone+4+iPad+2+Spared+From+Second+Ban/article23929.htm
Educate yourself please.
The problem comes from Apple not licencing the FRAND patents until it got caught using them. They both would licence the FRAND patents but Apple does not want to pay extra for the period they where infringing them (wanting special terms) and so both of them do not have to offer them.
'As part of its antitrust procedure in authorizing the purchase, it may examine whether Motorola unfairly denied Apple FRAND licensing in the two of its three Mannheim Court lawsuits that were based on 3G patents.'
From the article. In other words, the case which caused Apple to withdraw the products, was due to FRAND licensing.
The separate push email ban would only come into effect if Motorola decided to enforce a second judgement that Apple's iCloud and MobileMe infringed another of its innovations.
The patent relates to two-way communications between pagers and other devices and was granted in 2002.
If Motorola decides to enforce the judgement some iPhone users in Germany would lose the ability to automatically receive emails as soon as they have been sent. Instead they would either have to manually check their accounts or set their devices to periodically check for updates.
This patent is not deemed to be critical to an industry standard, so the firm does not have to license the technology to Apple even if the iPhone-maker offered to pay.
Just re-read this, you're right, but I was talking about the FRAND patents (the ones which actually had a consequence).