Motorola Wins Injunction Against Apple's iCloud in Germany
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.
- Zuckerberg Paying Over $1.5B in Taxes Thanks to IPO
- Pentax Intros 16MP Marc Newson Mirrorless Camera
- Google's Bouncer Protects Android Market From Malware
- Rumored iPad 3 Specs Point to Quad-core CPU, LTE Support
- Windows Phone 8 "Apollo" Supports Multi-Core, NFC
- Kindle Fire Captures 30 Percent of Web Traffic Among Tablets
- Facebook Now Reaches More than Half of All Internet Users
- NASA Analyzes Material Beyond Our Solar System
- Microsoft Officially Revealing Halo 4 This Month
- Samsung Confirms: No Galaxy S III at MWC This Month
- NASA's Other Side of the Amazing 11500x11500 Blue Marble
- HP: webOS Will Be Better Than Android, iOS
- Biodegradable Urn Turns You Into a Tree After Death
- Scientists Decode Brain Waves to Understand What We Hear
- OnStar Opens Smart Grid APIs for Chevy Volt
- Mars Has Been Dry For 600 Million Years
- This Record Player Turns Trees Into Music
- Neil Young Says MP3 Isn't Good Enough; Neither Are CDs
- Samsung Hits Out at Apple with Galaxy Note Super Bowl Ad
Karma is a bitch.
... what a FOSS?
WIN
While I hate all this patent trolling/litigation crud that is going on around the world, it is nice to see one of the biggest Patent trolls to be on the receiving end every once in a while
can I sue apple for not giving me the right instruction to hold my iphone right before I make my decision getting that stupid daming phone and tire-bone with ATnT for a 2 years hell expensive contract?
your news is really old sometimes...
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."
I guess Apple got a taste of its own medicine. It would be funny if they were to actually go ahead and appeal but end up losing in the end.
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?
I guess Apple got a taste of its own medicine. It would be funny if they were to actually go ahead and appeal but end up losing in the end.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
http://i.imgur.com/s2lvH.jpg
It's not an injunction against iCloud (which encompasses several features), but against iCloud's push email service. Big difference.
No idea why such a thing is patentable. Software patents need to go.
It's not an injunction against iCloud (which encompasses several features), but against iCloud's push email service. Big difference.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.
Hello Moto!
This FRAND patent abuse will come back to haunt Moto/Google and Samsung. Good luck getting your products included in any future standards.
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
Wow Moto did something good for once...
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.
Today's victory for Motorola over Apple saw the iPhone maker being found in violation of EP (European Patent) 0847654 (B1) (U.S. counterpart: U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119), which covers a "multiple pager status synchronization system and method".
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+B [...] e23929.htm
Educate yourself please.
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.
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.
Haha, sorry I quoted the wrong bit:
'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.
@watcha
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.
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
Just re-read this, you're right, but I was talking about the FRAND patents (the ones which actually had a consequence).
@watchaThe 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.
Yep, I agree with this,
>_> then i dont understand you quoted molo9000 and said that the push cloud email was covered under a FRAND patent but it isnt the FRAND patent that got the i-devices banned was to do with GPRS data transmission and nothing to do with the i-cloud at all.
you own quote says
I know, sorry irish_adam, I posted the wrong bit. What you said was accurate.
I was more talking about the FRAND patents which caused the devices to be temporarily banned from Germany - which were FRAND.
You're right though, in that Apple has not contended that they are FRAND in the case of the PUSH email to iCloud.
Personally though, I think push email is potentially a FRAND type-patent, but you're right that it isn't at the moment.
but they are not committing FRAND abuse like you claim Motorola offered them to licence it in 2007 for the FRAND rate but apple refused to pay it and as past infringements are not covered under FRAND it means that they are well within their rights to ask for above FRAND rate for the past 4 years. Apple just wants to pay 4 years of FRAND rate without any amount of damages to motorola.
Apple is in the wrong here, they had the chance to licence this technology fair and square since 2007 and now its been taken to caught its moaning as it has to pay a premium
See, this is where you ARE wrong.
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, but either way, it is not a refusal by Apple to pay, it's an overpriced licensing offer by Motorola.
Apple rebukes the claim that it was unwilling to pay a license fee, instead arguing that Motorola's proposed licensing offers weren't "fair" or "reasonable".
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.a [...] d=y#747969
It tried to do this because Motorola had defended its right to charge an above-Frand rate for Apple's use of its technology over the past four years. This could have been many times higher than the rate Apple was willing to pay and potentially very expensive."
...
"We have been negotiating with Apple and offering them reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007, and will continue our efforts to resolve our global patent dispute as soon as practicable."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16112259
as i said, Aple are just crying because they have to pay more as they were caught
Your own quote proves the fact that Motorola are not offering fair and reasonable amounts.
[citation]Motorola had defended its right to charge an above-Frand rate for Apple's use of its technology over the past four years.[/citation]
You aren't allowed to charge 'above-Frand' rates for FRAND technology.
you can charge above FRAND rates for past infringement, you cant just break the law for 4 years and get away with it by handing over what you should have to start with. If that was so there would be no point in licensing FRAND patents until you were caught incase you were never caught.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/20 [...] atent.html
i suggest you read that whole article as it explains why legally Motorola CAN withhold a FRAND patent
Irish_Adam,
'In Germany, however, a legal precedent has established that a FRAND defense can only be used under certain conditions. Namely, a company must have made an offer to license the patents in question on FRAND terms and posted a bond for expected future royalties. If a patent holder then refuses the offer and sues, the FRAND defense can be used.
Apple apparently made an offer to license the patent on FRAND terms going forward. But the matter was complicated by the fact that Apple's agreement included a clause that would allow it to try and have the patent invalidated if Motorola tried to seek damages for past infringement over and above the agreed FRAND rate.
Apple is in fact contesting the validity of the patent in suit in another federal court in Germany. Obviously it doesn't want to have to pay for infringing a patent that might not be valid.'
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/ [...] -sales.ars
Also:
'Motorola claims that it approached Apple in 2007, after the launch of the original iPhone, to license this and other standards essential patents for FRAND terms. "We have been negotiating with Apple and offering them reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007," Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel of Motorola Mobility, said in a statement e-mailed to Ars.
Apple apparently didn't consider the terms very fair, and the issue spilled into the courts in October last year, with Motorola filing lawsuits and ITC complaints against Apple over 18 patents.'
In other words, Apple only refused the original offer because it was NOT reasonable, not because it was 'waiting to be caught'. Furthermore, it offered to pay the FRAND rate but simply protected it's rights to make sure that it legally HAD to pay for the patent. Entirely reasonable.
And that is why they are appealing the case, and the FRAND defence can be used in cases where an offer to pay FRAND rates was put forward, which it was in this case.
Apple has already admitted its liable to pay for past infringement because it was included in their offer, this was one of the reasons why it was accepted by the German court
Motorola apparently argued that it would not have to grant a license for future use only if someone recognizes liability for past infringement in principle. They apparently want to receive a payment for those past damages or at least a bond that guarantees such payment.
It's unclear whether such licensing offers as the one made by Apple can be limited to a particular patent, or to standards-essential patents valid in only one jurisdiction (in this case, Germany), or whether a patent holder can withhold a license for the German market unless an offer to take a license covers all standards-essential patents held by the patent holder around the world.
The court also didn't address the question of whether willful infringement might preclude a defendant from access to a FRAND defense. Motorola claims to have contacted Apple back in 2007 with a demand to take a license to its standards-essential patents.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/20 [...] atent.html
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?