Apple wins injunction against Motorola in Germany over patent covering "rubber-banding"
the infringing devices destroyed and for another €10 million, it can ask for a recall which would take any infringing device out of the hands of current owners. The court also found that Motorola owes Apple from past cases in the country. Motorola Mobility is going to appeal the decision to the Munich Higher Regional Court and argue to the European Patent Office that the patent is not valid in the first place. There is a workaround for Motorola in the stock Android experience. Instead of a "rubber-banding" effect, stock Android has a "glow" at the end of a list. For Android users, this does not does the job as well as the bounce does.
Apple has won injunctions on Motorola twice before this year in Munich. One was for the "slide-to-unlock" patent, while the other dealt with the photo gallery page flipping patent, Overall, in Germany, Motorola has been found by the courts to have infringed on three Apple patents and two belonging to Microsoft. Luckily for Motorola, its market share in the country is fairly low. But for Android overall, Apple's suits are a problem that is not just going to go away by wishful thinking. Coming up in Germany is a Apple-Samsung patent trial set to start on December 7th.
1. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)
If I never saw another article relating to a lawsuit I'd be a relatively happy person.
45. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 8383; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Well if only companies can stop copying Apple.
51. willard12 (Posts: 1345; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Well if only apple didn't copy scroll bounce in the first place. Apple isn't first is R&D, just first to the patent office.
2. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Well, since Motorola is going more for stock anyway with Ice Cream Sandwich and forward, I don't see this as too much of a problem for them.
However, that Apple can gain this level of control over another company's sales over such a small feature is disturbing.
4. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10222; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Its also disturbing that judges haven't taken the time to realize these little features shouldn't deserve to even be patented.
17. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
By bribing and over-paying, anything is possible by Apple.
22. E.N. (Posts: 2578; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
I disagree. The bounce back is a nice visual affect that makes the OS feel more fluid. The bounce-back affect is very noticeable and (unfortunately) so is the blue glow.
Copying big and important features is understandable. But I think trying your luck with very iPhone-esque visual affects is highly unnecessary.
this is one of the few patents that I'm glad Apple was able to protect.
30. Whateverman (Posts: 3242; Member since: 17 May 2009)
I know right? "Big and important feature"??? LMFAO!
33. E.N. (Posts: 2578; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Can you read? I didn't say this was a big and important feature
36. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10222; Member since: 14 May 2012)
"Copying big and important features is understandable."
Big and important features are the radios, chips, and speed of a device, not a stupid "rubber band" patent.
39. E.N. (Posts: 2578; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Well that's basically what I meant. It's fine if you spend adding to your software major things that your competitors offer, but why copy the rubber-band affect? Of all things.
56. Whateverman (Posts: 3242; Member since: 17 May 2009)
My mistake, but either way what your saying is really funny! I didn't even notice the "Bounce Back" in iOS until the lawsuit. This has to be the stupidest thing to take another tech company to court for.
57. E.N. (Posts: 2578; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Its not really something you're suppose to notice, its just there and helps with the overall experience. I didn't notice it either until I saw it in a video review of the international Galaxy SII. Then I thought, hmmm.. that looks very familiar.
It may be stupid for them to take it to court, but Motorola should have removed it when Apple asked them to. This may be a small feature (I'm not disagreeing with that), but why did Samsung and Motorola try to copy it and refuse to remove it? Obviously it has some kind of value if ....
1. it stood out to them as they were researching/using the iPhone
2. they liked it so much that both Samsung and Motorola incorporated it in their devices
3. didn't remove the feature when Apple told them they were going to sue
4. are willing to go to court and fight to keep the feature on their devices. Like I said earlier, Stick with the glow!
I'm not bashing Android at all here and once again I'm not saying this is an groundbreaking feature, but Apple is not wrong in any way for wanting them to remove it.
35. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
it was neat the first few times, but serves no purpose, much like the glow. However, I do love the cyan glow on my black amoled. its peeerty.
37. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10222; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Especially when the AMOLED is in HD. :)
41. E.N. (Posts: 2578; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
We're mostly on the same page. But realize that both Samsung and Motorla have actively tried to copy the rubber-band affect. Stick with the glow, lol! They were both foolish to think Apple wouldn't respond.
43. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
yea, that copy was on older handsets. What new models still have that bounce effect? The last injunctions Apple won against moto this year were for the all mighty Cliq, CliqXT, and other phones of that era. Both Blur and Touchwiz moved from "me too" to "blowing you away with our features" quite a while ago.
Its not like they are about to ban the Razr or any of the new models with this suite. lol. Personally, I think its a waste of a patent and a real waste of time.
And I HOPE Apple goes for the big prize, to forcibly remove the handset from consumers and have them destroyed. Oh lordy please let their arrogant asses do that. Do you know how much negative backlash there will be in the press for that?
58. E.N. (Posts: 2578; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
"The last injunctions Apple won against moto this year were for the all mighty Cliq, CliqXT.......Its not like they are about to ban the Razr or any of the new models"
- this is perfect evidence that Apple is not only aiming at the best-sellers like the SIII and SII because "they're scared" like all the fandroids seem to believe. They might actually be trying to protect their OS if they're willing to go after these low-end devices that, honestly, nobody really cares about.
And you're right, this whole legal battle was completely unnecessary and avoidable. Moto should have removed the feature.
65. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
That's my point, they removed that feature YEARS ago in most cases.
They are not going after "every phone", they are going after phones that infringe. The only ones that infringe are the older models that never got updated. Its not about "protecting" their IP as much as it is bullying and sending a message. Find me one major android phone that was built in the last 12 months or so that uses bounceback. The SGS2 lost its bounce back in its first or 2nd update.
66. E.N. (Posts: 2578; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
You say bullying I say they're bullishly protecting their OS.
You could be right as in the SGIII, One X and Galaxy nexus for sure don't have the bounce back effect at least in the US. I just don't know what's going on in the rest of the world. At the end of the day, Apple has every right to want the bounce-back removed, low-end or not.
68. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
ha, well if you think Apple can get manufacturers to give an update to older phones, then go for it. lol. They sure as hell are not updating to new software on their own.
8. jroc74 (Posts: 5732; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Yea...I cant remember the last time I saw this feature in a Moto phone. I have a Droid X1, thats not in use, a Droid 1...not in use...a RAZR that is. And it doesnt have this rubber band effect anywhere. It has the glow effect.
Whats wild is I never liked that rubber band effect...lol I had it on a launcher before, and always turned it off.
26. Aeires (unregistered)
First thing I disable on launchers as well. The glow is much preferred.
32. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 8383; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Motorola did the same thing remember? Try wanted to sue on some patents to cause major damage to Apple.
50. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
You're still insisting on this dichotomy?
Motorola and the other OEMS are trying to get leverage on Apple to get them to back down from litigating everyone. Apple is doing what they're doing to destroy Android. Way different end goals in mind.
53. VZWuser76 (Posts: 3071; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Okay, so tell me this. Since I'd bet that apple is going to put up however much it can, what happens to those owners who have their device recalled? If I was a betting man they may give them some money back towards a new device, but are they going to pro rate it? If so apple has in effect stolen from someone who apparently wasn't going to be a customer in the first place. Do they think that will make them run into apple's arms. If I had that happen to me you can be damn sure the company behind it would NEVER get my money.
The other thing that gets me is you sit their proclaiming how great apple is, but Wozniak, the man who is as much if not more so is responsible for apple than Jobs calls all this patent bs ridiculous. In the early days before apple, Wozniak was the one responsible for actually designing the computers and making them work. Jobs on the other hand was the salesman and came up with concepts that Wozniak had to then find a way to make happen. So if he is against all this legal maneuvering, why are you still for it? Without Jobs there may have been an apple in a different form, but without Wozniak, Jobs would've been the greatest car salesman around. Give credit where it's due.
3. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10222; Member since: 14 May 2012)
The patent shouldn't even exist anyway. I hope they win the appeal because I'm sick of Apple.
15. SuperMaoriBro (Posts: 479; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)
I agree. If I was a fan of Apple before, I certainly am not one anymore. I am sick of their "spoilt child" like behaviour. I now go out of my way to influence others and make them realise that although they make great products, they are not a great company. They have the highest gross margins while contributing nothing back to society - even though they are the richest tech company they still dont make any charitable donations. they throw a tantrum when they think someone else has stolen one of their ideas but completely ignore it when they do the same. I used to like you Apple, but now I don't. I hope karma comes for you Apple.
24. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 462; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
So you are bold face lying! If you can read, please come back after doing so and say they don't make charitable contributions. Android loyalists, fighting the good fight for their daddy Google. Talk about sheep! SMH.
28. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10222; Member since: 14 May 2012)
And I'm guessing you're going to support Apple by buying the iPhone 5 even though any phone that has been released since last year is better than it, correct?
31. Hallucinator (Posts: 344; Member since: 24 May 2010)
To you I'm sure any Android phone that comes out is better than the iPhone 5 and that is perfectly fine. However if someone does not like Android and prefers iOS and iPhones that should be fine also. Unless you are one of the sheep that other Android users call iPhone users, but I'm sure you are a very open minded and intelligent individual and that's not the case.
38. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10222; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Where in my post do you see any Android phone? I said ANY phone, which includes the Lumia 900.
Learn how to read before you make a fool of yourself.
34. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
wow. way to stretch it. Apple's "donations" if you read it right were from their "Project Red" co branded ipods. They promised to give a "portion" of the proceeds to project red if you bought an ipod. So instead of the usual 40%, they only got 35% (or more)... yaaay.
There was ZERO contributions while jobs was there other than project red which was just another ploy to make them money. There has been a "employee contribution charity" that Cook added after SJ died.
Also, notice that the next most valuable company, Exxon, gives nearly 200 million a year.. not 50 million over 30 years from the sale of specially marked ipods.
46. housecat (Posts: 8; Member since: 06 Sep 2012)
Haha. Nice article to use to support your argument. Apple donates 0.1 percent of what it has to charity. POINT ONE percent!!! Pretty fn lame for world's most valuable company.
47. jroc74 (Posts: 5732; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I will say I didnt know that...and thats good. +1 for Apple. Still doesnt compare to what Bill Gates does with his money. But it is good for Apple.
61. SuperMaoriBro (Posts: 479; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)
@Tre-Nitty. 1st, "bold face lying" would imply I knew this and said the opposite - this is simply not true. Also agree with what Remixfa said. 0.1% - from one of the worlds most valuable companies, who have the highest gross margins in the industry? come on.
5. wendygarett (unregistered)
I don't understand why Apple wanna ban because of the rubber band....
What is rubber band anyway...
6. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
It's an effect at the end of the list where the list "bounces."
14. wendygarett (unregistered)
Didn't even realise that effect... Thanks sniggly
Sorry Apple, that patent is invalid...
7. jroc74 (Posts: 5732; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
lol..well....I just hope every Android manufacture has patents on their features, icons, ect.
10. Aeires (unregistered)
Apple is calling for all devices found to be infringing on the patent to be destroyed. Yes, destroyed, not banned. And Apple has gone way to far this time. Seriously.
20. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
What can be done to stop that rooten company.....?
Let's all over the world boycott Apple!
44. No_Nonsense (Posts: 826; Member since: 17 Aug 2012)
Trust me that won't happen anytime soon. Until the sheep remain, Apple remains.
11. SvbZero (Posts: 27; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)
Mark my words.. Your day is coming! Money is the root of all evil.. And you're at the top of that list APPLE . I can't wait
12. jroc74 (Posts: 5732; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I thought this was odd from Alan F.:"For Android users, this does not do the job as well as the bounce does."
Says who? I just made a post where I said I didn't like it....when my Droid 1 was my main phone in 2010.
13. SvbZero (Posts: 27; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)
Mark my words.. Your day is coming! Money is the root of all evil.. And you're at the top of that list APPLE! I can't wait
19. SvbZero (Posts: 27; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)
Greed comes with a price! There are men women & children starving in the world.. And this is how you spend your money? Pathetic
21. ScottSchneider (Posts: 328; Member since: 06 Dec 2011)
I know that each and every person in this world will have their change to screw back Apples @$$ back when the time comes... not every ball thrown upwards goes into space.. It WILL come down one day... and that day ppl... We will see each and every single company trying to get a piece of that Apple... Very Soon.. Very Soon...
29. Friendlysky (Posts: 54; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
I can't wait to see someone come along an after Apple and strip them out from the business. You win one they get 10 from apple and make sure will be no more apple. what a joke cook said will have more job for the US. That is a lies for the US consumer to buy their Iphone 5.
40. BREvenson (Posts: 240; Member since: 17 May 2012)
Oh for the love of god, they have a patent for THAT? Is the goal of Apple to patent all eligible technology and features so that they are the only ones that can use it? Way to be competitive, Apple. Take everything for yourself and prove that Apple is nothing but a power-hungry, overzealous tech glutton that can't survive unless it dominates everything.
48. jroc74 (Posts: 5732; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
The sad thing is...I just posted how in that Woz article about how in Android land, the OEMs copy from each other all the time....without all the fighting n crying.
Why does it seem like Apple is the only ones crying?
62. Aeires (unregistered)
Because they are the only one crying.
52. temporallobe9 (Posts: 1; Member since: 14 Sep 2012)
I am by now means a "techy". I have used all phones and pc and gaming devices from Mac, pc, Xbox, playstation, LG, Samsung, htc, blackberry etc. I really don't care to much about the whole "Mac vs pc, apple vs android" stuff. I am currently looking at a new smartphone and my research has shown for my specific needs a Galaxy note II will do nicely.
What I am trying to understand on the patents is basically something like a "screen bounce" is a collection of code. This code was developed by someone and is very specific and has a set of numbers that are specific to that function. So did Samsung actually " copy and paste" that codex? If that is the case then that is like printing off an exact duplicate of say a sports teams logo, or making a duplicate "Nike" symbol. But how would that duplicate codex work in a different platform?
What I mean is are the programming language of Samsung and apple the same? Again I don't much but are they both like "Linux" or are they " c++" again I'm sorry if my references don't make sense I am just trying to understand. I mean ford and mitsubishi both make cars with four doors, seats and doors and windshield wipers. So is that what were talking about or did they actually make a carbon copy duplicate of a ford and change the bumper sticker?
54. VZWuser76 (Posts: 3071; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
I'm not entirely sure, but when reading the patents, they're not actually patenting the code, but the action that is performed and the outcome. I had always heard that you can't patent an action, but apparently with enough money behind you, you can.
What you are describing is the way the patent system should work. By patenting the actual software code, that allows someone else to come up with different code that allows the same function. But by patenting the action & outcome, no one else can have that functionality, even if what it takes to make it happen is different. It's precisely why an overhaul of the patent system is needed. It's also why when deciding these things in court, the people deciding it should be able to grasp what's going on. A jury of everday people is fine for things that happen in everyday life, but for things that require a technical mind to reason it out, they should have a panel of people that have some experience in these matters, not a bunch of people off the street that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
I have a technical background (electronic engineering), but I don't think I could say that I would've been the right person to be in the jury either, simply because I don't have a background in computers, which is what the apple/samsung trial was about. But, unlike the people on that jury, I would've understood the ramifications of the outcome of that trial. It was a lot farther reaching than punishing one company for copying. It was about being able to patent every nut & bolt, shape & color, and every little corner of the OS, to the point that anything remotely similar is something to sue over and use that litigation to shape the landscape of the mobile industry. But that's just my opinion.
55. whencatsruletheworld (Posts: 16; Member since: 05 Sep 2012)
Sorry Apple, after your announcement of the iPhone 5, lots of people are queueing to get the Samsung Galaxy S3 instead.
59. chenweiweasel (Posts: 2; Member since: 16 Aug 2010)
Why Germans love to help Apple so much!
67. Googlethis (Posts: 179; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
Germany usualy sides with the patent holder in this case apple is the patent holder therefore they are the company that will win in this case. I personaly think that the patent should not of been awarded.