Appeals court rules in Apple's favor, Google and Motorola lose patent lawsuit
In April of last year, the ITC ruled against Motorola and Google and the ruling was appealed. A decision announced today by the Appeals Court involves just one of the patents, dealing with push notifications on the Motorola DROID 2. The appellate court ruled in favor of Apple, agreeing that the ITC made the correct decision when it said that Apple did not infringe on the patent.
This would seem to put an end to this particular suit. But don't worry, there is plenty of action ahead for you law buffs. In March, both Apple and Samsung will begin the sequel to their epic patent trial which will once again be presided over by Judge Lucy Koh. And this time the stakes are higher as more current Samsung devices are involved.
1. darkkjedii (Posts: 17115; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Uh ohhhhh, watch out Sammy. Apple might pull a Rocky 2 on your Apollo.
2. WHoyton1 (Posts: 1635; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
All the patent BS should stop, just stop copying guys and instead of just suing, how about you spend that money on R&D!
5. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
They do spend money on R&D, and on lawsuits. They don't have to pick one or the other. But they can't just stop defending their intellectual properties, unless there's some serious changes to the law which isn't happening anytime soon. It's actually pretty normal for there to be a lot of lawsuits in an industry with a lot of growth and a lot of innovation.
22. darkkjedii (Posts: 17115; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Apples got The right to protect the intellectual property just like you said, they should sue anybody who infringes on their products and whoever doesn't like it can kiss off
28. jacko1977 (Posts: 428; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
ur saying samsung,google,motorola shouldn't defend there intellectual property that apple down right stole knowing damn right that the courts will defend them
36. roscuthiii (Posts: 1957; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
I think more than just the right to protect their IP, they're also legally obligated to protect their IP.
What needs to happen is patent reform. I can dream right?
45. downphoenix (Posts: 2892; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
Google has the right to protect their IP as well, but aren't sue happy like Apple. Of course, Apple might not be so sue happy if they weren't able to get away with it and win all the freakin' time. It is a shame that Apple does it, but if the court systems weren't so abuseable they wouldnt continue doing it.
29. jacko1977 (Posts: 428; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
apple dont innovat they just use other peoples parts and get other people to put them together
samsung make there
not 100% if the make there own phones and tablets im sure they do
not sure what other parts
apple draws out something then hands it to foxkill and says make this with this
38. elitewolverine (Posts: 3868; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
making and designing are two different things.
Samsung makes plenty of products they do not design. I think you are getting confused on how and what goes where.
19. darkkjedii (Posts: 17115; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
All jokes aside WH, I 100% agree with you.
10. Sniggly (Posts: 7296; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Since the fu.ck when can Apple be compared to Rocky?
17. darkkjedii (Posts: 17115; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Well Apple did have a humble start, inside of the garage. They then rose to prominence.
27. blazee (Posts: 395; Member since: 02 Jan 2012)
different beast since then. operated and owned by different people.
40. Sniggly (Posts: 7296; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
By the time the Apple patent wars started, Apple was the dominant grand champ. Like Apollo Creed, not Rocky.
Apple also won Round one. Like Apollo.
Apple has also been very loud about how much it's adored and how successful it is. Like Apollo.
I mean, frickin' duh.
46. downphoenix (Posts: 2892; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
Google had humble beginnings too. And Im sure Apollo Creed did too, it's just that isnt where the Rocky trilogy started.
41. Sniggly (Posts: 7296; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
I wasn't upset. I was expressing disbelief.
47. darkkjedii (Posts: 17115; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Dude snig gets too sensitive, and worked up. I just stop responding lol.
49. Sniggly (Posts: 7296; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Of course you stop responding because I'm "too worked up," and not because you came up with an entirely stupid analogy that everyone has torn apart.
Dark, I'm right here, and I CAN see when you try to flippantly suck up to other users over your mutual issues with me.
14. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Not to nitpick, but that analogy would only work if Samsung won the first round. Rocky lost to Apollo Creed in the first movie by a split decision, and then beat him in Rocky 2 to claim the title. So if it would actually follow the Rocky 1 & 2 storyline, Apple should be worried about a comeback. Just sayin'.
23. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
That was Apollo Creed being killed by the Russian, and Rocky making a comeback and beating him for Apollo. How does that correlate to this?
I was simply pointing out that for the analogy to apply, that either Apple would've had to lose the first round (which it didn't) or that Sasmsung would have the comeback in round 2.
32. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Again, you used the Rocky 2 analogy. Simply throwing out every other Rocky doesn't change the fact that it was a flawed analogy. BTW, why didn't you mention Rocky 3? No love for Mr T? I pity u fool!
3. mturby (unregistered)
That judge Lucy K. can not longer preside over this trials as she may be biased by her own last trial final decision. Also she may look as an Apple employee.
6. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Just because you don't like a verdict doesn't mean the judge is biased.
30. jacko1977 (Posts: 428; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
thats like saying im a judge and thinking u got tatts and coz u have tatts u must of did it even if u got evidence that u didnt does that make me non biased
21. darkkjedii (Posts: 17115; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Why don't you go tell her that yourself
4. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
This is beyond UNETHICAL
7. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
why should they stop ? ... I don't see the consumer paying for any of this.. let them trade millions...
8. JerryTime (Posts: 468; Member since: 09 Nov 2013)
If you don't think that this is budgeted into everything a company does, and that the consumer doesn't pay for it in some way or fashion, you are sorrily mistaken.
13. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Since no one here works for any of the companies involved, no. Companies don't publicize that they are taking more from the customer's pockets. But recovering costs when a loss happens is part of business. The money has to come from somewhere. If they don't raise the product's cost, then it has to come from r&d, advertising, materials cost, or wages and/or layoffs. Any of those things can hurt the consumer, higher product cost costs them outright. Skimping on r&d, advertising, or materials can lead to a shoddy product. Loss of employee wages or layoffs could be anything from hurting only those employees to the entire populace if they go on unemployment.
So I'll direct a question back to you. What facts do you have to support your claim that it doesn't affect the consumer?
15. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
I am a consumer and I have access to any device I want and phone's prices has been moderate, I have not heard of any relevant phone banned, in my opinion inflation has hurted our packets more than any patent war, as far as innovation we are seeing bigger screens, bigger processors.. even smarthwatches,, innovation has not been slowed down, and companies lose some but they also wins some.. part of their budget... all big companies have that..
18. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
In 2009, the top of the line phones were around $450 off contract, now they are at around $800. That's almost double. While higher end specs are part of it, that doesn't explain all of it. No relavent phones have been banned? What about a year or two ago when some HTC models were held at customs? Those were brand new phone models, not ones that were out for a year.
So where does all this money, to pay lawyer bills and the penalties when a suit is lost, come from? CEOs aren't taking pay cuts, and besides Apple, most companies don't have a huge cash pile to draw from. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. The money to pay these legal costs doesn't appear out of thin air.
26. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
So we are back to square one, because if there no proof that all that has happened due to patent wars... I remember the HTC incident, but that isolated incident is proof that we are being affected, there were more consumers affected by the Droid Bionic fiasco than the HTC incident... There is lots of things we don't not see, but to blame The patents wars is getting old.
33. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
It's not possible to say that more were affected by the Bionic incident than the HTC one. Because with the Bionic incident, you could see how many bought owned the device. How many moved on from the HTC models when newer ones from other companies were available. Short of polling every single person in the US, there's no way to know, since taking a sample poll you could miss the potential buyers giving you an inaccurate picture.
The point I've been trying to make is that these patent wars do affect the consumer, otherwise there'd be no motivation for these companies to bring these suits. Every time a company does copy or a device gets banned, that's lost revenue for someone. And banned devices means less choices for the consumers. Beyond that legal fees add up and the companies have to make it up somewhere, and unless they have a secret cash pile, that means passing the costs onto the consumer. That isn't a new concept, they know they have to make so much on each item sold so they can continue to operate, so when costs go up, so does the selling price.
34. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
Ok what banned you wanted to get and because of this patents wars you were unable? Or how were you affected?
37. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
So every person has to be affected by the ban for it to be a problem? I wasn't affected by Hurricane Katrina, doesn't mean that wasn't a problem. My point is that people were affected by these disputes, and I am against taking anyone's choices away from them. I don't believe in banning any devices unless as an absolute last resort. Patents are there to provide compensation to the patent holder, not to remove their competition.
As far as what's affected me, the prices of all phones has gone up since 2009 (which is partly due to higher specs, but not completely) and I've had a few phones where features were removed after purchase because of patents (universal phone search for one).
12. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2932; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Agreed. NONE of these companies take the hit, it gets passed onto the consumer. Ever heard the term s#*t rolls downhill?
While there are both frivolous and legitimate patent suits, what I find curious is that so far only Apple and MS have seemed to win. The law of probability should at least have some of the other companies winning a few. It just seems a little fishy to me. Especially with Motorola, for the longest time the only big names in mobile phones was Motorola and Nokia. And while Nokia has had quite a few victories, Motorola has none? Especially considering that they invented the cell phone. Does no one else find that a bit odd?
16. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Not really. R&D usually makes up like 2% of a tech company's annual budget. They don't really need to cut into that to pay their legal team.
24. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 1757; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
It's a fallacy to think these lawsuits stifle innovation. On the contrary, they encourage innovation. Don't do things like someone else did it first, and you won't get sued.
35. Taters (Posts: 5871; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Not a fallacy at all. Patents price out other companies that refuse to build a smartphone because they have to pay Apple and Microsoft money to succeed which makes the start up budget a deal breaker.
For really stupid s**t that they shouldn't have to pay for to boot. It is like a toilet paper company patenting paper and no one else can make toilet paper without paying royale some bling. All that does is make toilet paper expensive. Doesn't protect anyone.
39. elitewolverine (Posts: 3868; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
taters considering your idea is so single minded it shows the level of thought used, it's sad really.
No it doesn't stifle anything.
People spent years building OS's and their designs and functions.
BMW spends hours upon hours on a single note for their instruments to get the sound 'just' right. The same for these companies.
They spend hours, some don't go home but sleep there. Coding is one of the highest burn out jobs there is, and their work in design is a work of art.
Just because some other person wants to use anothers ideas, for a quick cheap buck, is bull.
Pay up or don't play the game, that simple.
43. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Apple ~ LITIGATION not INNOVATION
How is that for their new slogan?
44. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
lol, litigation in regards to outdated phone is hilarious...