x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options
    Close






Apple wins injunction against Motorola in Germany over patent covering "rubber-banding"

0. phoneArena 13 Sep 2012, 21:49 posted on

Apple's patent covering the so-called over-scroll bounce effect, has been infringed upon by Google's wholly-owned Motorola Mobility according to a court in Germany; using stock Android would be a valid workaround since it uses a "glow" effect...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 21:52 26

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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:43 1

45. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 14200; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Well if only companies can stop copying Apple.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 00:37 12

51. willard12 (Posts: 1722; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 21:53 15

2. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 21:57 11

4. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 22:15 15

17. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)


By bribing and over-paying, anything is possible by Apple.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 22:25 1

22. E.N. (Posts: 2610; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 22:51 8

27. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)


Seriously?

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:03 6

30. Whateverman (Posts: 3271; Member since: 17 May 2009)


I know right? "Big and important feature"??? LMFAO!

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:12

33. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)


Can you read? I didn't say this was a big and important feature

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:16 5

36. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:22

39. E.N. (Posts: 2610; 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.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 02:15 2

56. Whateverman (Posts: 3271; 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.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 02:52

57. E.N. (Posts: 2610; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:15 7

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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:17 6

37. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)


Especially when the AMOLED is in HD. :)

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:28

41. E.N. (Posts: 2610; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:35 3

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?

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 03:05

58. E.N. (Posts: 2610; 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.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 10:19 1

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.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 14:09

66. E.N. (Posts: 2610; 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.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 16:25

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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:30

42. sarb009 (Posts: 310; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)


patent trolling at its best. viva is**t

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 22:06 3

8. jroc74 (Posts: 6015; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 22:44 2

26. Aeires (unregistered)


First thing I disable on launchers as well. The glow is much preferred.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 23:09

32. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 14200; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Motorola did the same thing remember? Try wanted to sue on some patents to cause major damage to Apple.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 00:27 2

50. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; 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.

posted on 14 Sep 2012, 01:40 1

53. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4476; 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.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 21:54 4

3. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)


The patent shouldn't even exist anyway. I hope they win the appeal because I'm sick of Apple.

posted on 13 Sep 2012, 22:12 1

15. SuperMaoriBro (Posts: 527; 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.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories