U.S. Apple v Motorola lawsuit dismissed in its entirety
Earlier this morning Judge Posner canceled the jury portion of the trial, leaving Apple and Motorola only the option of presenting their case in front of the judge in the hopes of getting declarative damages or (more importantly to both companies) injunctive relief as a matter of law. Now those hopes are largely dashed, as Posner has ruled that neither side provided evidence of sufficient damages as to warrant injunctive relief, and has thrown the case out entirely, with prejudice.
That means that not only will there be no injunctions from this case, but the patents brought by Apple and Motorola cannot be asserted against the other in federal court again. The judge labeled this a “tentative ruling”, as he is reserving the right to change his mind as he writes up his formal opinion next week. We don’t consider a reversal to be terribly likely, as Posner has been exasperated with both sides for some time, in particular lecturing Apple more than once about wasting the court’s time, and indicating early on that neither was going to win a ruling that let them completely exclude competition from the smartphone business.
This is a far bigger loss for Apple than Motorola, as Motorola's countersuit was merely an attempt to gain leverage to prevent Apple from shutting them out of the U.S. in the event that they won an injunction. Apple also had more patents left on the table, all of which will now be useless against Motorola in further U.S. lawsuits. Not surprisingly, Motorola has already released a short statement expressing their pleasure at this temporary ruling, while Apple has stayed mum on the subject so far.
If you want to read the short and rather terse two page legal order you can find it in the source link below.
source: Posner's Ruling via The Verge
1. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5497; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
"This is a far bigger loss for Apple than Motorola..."
Sounds good! :)
4. tedkord (Posts: 5249; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
The ability to assert these patents against Moto ever. One less avenue to a bogus ban.
23. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
for Apple their good name ;)
now most of IT readers hate Apple because they are liars, thieves, bribers, .... :
22. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
no, this is a loss just for Apple....Motorola was just defending.....so this is a great relief for Google....probably this is the beginning of the end of this iRotten behaviour of Apple and the competition can begun with complete destruction of non innovative and backward Apple iPhone and iPad :)
3. theBankRobber (Posts: 649; Member since: 22 Sep 2011)
Seems like the judges in the US have been doing their homework lately:)
5. Hammerfest (Posts: 370; Member since: 12 May 2012)
Common sense occuring in US courtroom's in the last month or so... I feel TERRABLY off balance...
Can someone check "the force"? How about those exhaust ports? Did Apple forget to pay its normal "under the table" fees? Did they miss the memo about the price hike in "pay-off" fees?
Color me confused at the SANE judges for this past month in some of these case's...
This gives me hope for the Apple V Samsung case's... a very small amount... but nope none-the-less!
6. sprockkets (Posts: 1352; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
What, you mean apple can't prove the harm of android phones featuring "data detectors" when they sold 100+ ios devices? You know, like when Tim Cook says we can't make enough to meet demand???
Say it ain't so!
7. DroogV59 (Posts: 37; Member since: 02 Jun 2011)
Apple`s Wile E Coyote moment this. I`d have loved to have seen the expression on Timmy Cook`s face when he heard the news.
8. tedkord (Posts: 5249; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Oracle v. Google
Customs releasing the HTC phones
Apple v. Motorola
I'm regaining some faith in the system.
9. remixfa (Posts: 14135; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
thank god for a judge that wont put up with nonsense.
so, itrolls, now that apple has been slapped down YET AGAIN for excessive court bullying without merit, are any of you ready to see what we've been trying to show you? That apple is rotten fruit that dose not innovate, they only legislate.
Nuthin but a bully thats upset because someone took away its lollipop.
10. stealthd (Posts: 980; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Did you read the article? They said the case was dismissed due to BOTH parties. Your idea of bullying is laughably naive.
13. jroc74 (Posts: 5192; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
"as Motorola's countersuit was merely an attempt to gain leverage to prevent Apple from shutting them out of the U.S."
Thats from the article.....
62. remixfa (Posts: 14135; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
motorola was countersuing to get leverage in the lawsuit. i do believe that was even mentioned in the article. they would not have sued in the first place had apple not bullied them in the court. get a grip.
71. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
"apple not bullied them in the court" can you prove this.. thanks for your troll opinion.. remix.. but even the writer of the articles disagrees with your nonsense
72. remixfa (Posts: 14135; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
" as Motorola's countersuit was merely an attempt to gain leverage to prevent Apple from shutting them out of the U.S. "
Its something called reading comprehension. try it.
12. Scott_H (Posts: 167; Member since: 28 Oct 2011)
I don't think it's fair to say Apple doesn't innovate - while much of what they do is taking existing ideas and polishing them to the nth degree, the way they can simplify computing experiences and make them connect with users is certainly a form of innovation.
On the other hand, they certainly don't innovate as much (or in as much of a vacuum) as their diehard fans seem to believe. And I have to agree that they have been little short of a bully when it comes to litigation.
19. mas11 (Posts: 1032; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
Exactly, Apple has never come up with an original idea. They steal from others, polish the idea, make it user friendly then patent it. Apple blatantly stole the mouse from Xerox and they were able to get away with it because Xerox didn't think it was important enough to patent.
29. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Umm Apple purchased the rights to the Xerox technology. Way to ignore facts.
30. mas11 (Posts: 1032; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
ting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_Here are the facts gladwell
35. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Did you miss the part where Xerox got 1 million shares for the technology?
36. mas11 (Posts: 1032; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
"So Jobs proposed a deal: he would allow Xerox to buy a hundred thousand shares of his company for a million dollars—its highly anticipated I.P.O. was just a year away—if PARC would “open its kimono.
First of all it's only 100,000 shares which Xerox PAID Apple $1 million for the shares.
Second all he got from Xerox was a tour.
Third read the article carefully.
39. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
If you read more than one article and knew the history Apple payed for the technology. Nothing was stolen.
42. mas11 (Posts: 1032; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
But seriously do you have an article from a source as reliable as The New Yorker that says otherwise? If not then I see no reason to believe that you statement is factual.
70. gwuhua1984 (Posts: 1237; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
Apple just stole HTC's design and put it on their iPhone 5. according to the taco that won't stay with food, its not stolen.
48. tedkord (Posts: 5249; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
First, Xerox got 100,000 shares, not a million. Next, the were paid for the tour, not to license any tech. Jobs stole, as he always admitted.
32. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 4142; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
And you think Android is innovation? So explain to me why Samsung had to copy Apple over and over?
34. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
38. Mark.J.Linskiy (unregistered)
Making better items/devices is considered copying?
49. iphoneisthebest79 (Posts: 68; Member since: 23 May 2012)
taco50, you forget another thing, GALAXY TAP it was a copy of ipad too. they should called it (galaxy itap) ....
43. mas11 (Posts: 1032; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
Dude your "Apple" iPhone 4S is filled with Samsung hardware. Think about that before you rip on Samsung.
Anyways you are not supposed to be able to patent obvious things.
Such as a rectangular tablet with rounded edges and a thin bezel.
The store is probably just some crappy Samsung licensed reseller doing a bad job.
The plug- so now Apple owns the IP for a square?
A box with the picture of the product on it? Show is that not obvious?
A standard USB cable with the USB logo on it going to a proprietary connector! Without Apple no one would ever have the idea to use a common connector to interface with more obscure hardware, never-mind the fact that USB was designed by Intel with help from other companies.
A voice recording application with a picture of a microphone? Another brilliant innovation by Apple. It's not like the microphone hasn't been the de facto symbol for mic in/voice recording since... ever...
50. tedkord (Posts: 5249; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
I would be happy to explain why Samsung needed to copy Apple over and over again. They didn't. And rabid fans, like yourself, simply accepted anything Steve Jobs and Apple said at face value. If Steve Jobs had said he'd created the sky, you would be calling for Apple to sue God.
Also, you need some way to rationalize Android's dominance in the mobile space. To your addled mind, its not possible that it could be because its a good product. It has to be illegitimized for you to understand. Therefore, you grab onto the stolen excuse, now in your mind you can simply believe Android (and Samsung) are winning because they copied Apple, and people think they are buying an Apple product.
65. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
All you need is two eyes to see Samsung copied
81. joey_sfb (Posts: 3216; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
taco50, an iFan in the ocean of green bots.
63. remixfa (Posts: 14135; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
i dont consider super shiny innovation. The only actual innovation apple has done in the mobile space was with the original iphone and how they combined other elements for the first time. Since then its been "take from here... sue... take from there... sue.... buy this... sue them".
I also dont consider removing options and calling it "user friendly" innovation either.. which is basically all they do.
The one thing they did innovate is how to completely entangle a consumer into an ecosystem so deep that its near impossible to get out without major costs involved. Great for them, bad for the consumer.
28. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
You just got slapped down on another bogus claim in another article
15. networkdood (Posts: 6326; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Apple reminds me of a rapist - does not know the meaning of "NO!!!!"
16. mas11 (Posts: 1032; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
Now if only if the judge forced Apple to pay Motorola's legal fees for starting this frivolous lawsuit.
17. hepresearch (unregistered)
This is nothing... now Apple can clear Motorola from their 'list', and focus on Samsung and HTC. Now, Microsoft and Nokia, with greater essential patent leverage, will go after Motorola, and by extension, Google, instead of Apple.
26. chadrick0814 (Posts: 208; Member since: 23 Nov 2011)
Microsoft usually only asks for royalties while apple sues eliminate competitors.
60. hepresearch (unregistered)
That little import ban on Motorola last month... although mostly applying to older models that are no longer being sold commonly... was the work of an injunction sued for by Microsoft. They don't just ask for royalties any more... they are learning from Apple.
56. tedkord (Posts: 5249; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Yes, it was nothing...except several million dollars in legal expenses that brought absolutely no return, and wound up blocking several patents from future enforcement.
You're a glass half full kinda guy, aren't you?
61. hepresearch (unregistered)
I'm a natural skeptic. I had to be, and I was trained to be an even better skeptic. Theorists have to sit down and take a hard look at things that look or sound right at first glance, and then systematically peel back the appearances to reveal any possible underlying behavior that brings a more accurate picture of what is really going on. I cannot just accept everything I see on the spot, at face value. Truth is that when the glass is half-full, it is also simultaneously half-empty... a linear superpostion of states that dissolves into oblivion once you make a choice to see only one or the other. Once you adopt one perspective, you are likely to lose all others unless you take it in with a healthy dose of skepticism.
66. remixfa (Posts: 14135; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
me thinks you just described taco and his merry band of iTards with those last 2 lines.
67. hepresearch (unregistered)
Not just them... there are also a lot more people here who fail to take that healthy dose of skepticism on select topics. We cannot just point at the iExtremists, because there are clearly some ExtremeDroids here, too; and then there is a whole spectrum of folks somewhere in the middle, who are slightly biased in one direction or the other, but who willingly let up on the skepticism for news items on their favored OS. I am actually unsure if I can remember ever running into someone else on here who came across to me as truly and completely balanced all the time... but then again, with the polarizing factors involved in such things, it is nearly impossible for anyone to balance themselves completely in this kind of war of ideas. I am no exception. I like Michael H., though... good balanced writing from that dude. He admits Apple's strengths and Android's challenges, but is not gung-ho for Apple, like Victor... but sometimes I like what Victor points out, too...
Despite what anyone else says, overall, the writers here strike me as a fairly balanced crew. Thank you, PhoneArena!
68. remixfa (Posts: 14135; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
ha, nice plug for the PA writers. :)
in order to combat extremism, the other side often comes off as extremist because of all the counter points they must make to try to pull the actual extremist to the center. every action has to have an equal and opposite reaction.
Many of us are very close to the center. Its the constant arguing that makes us not look like such.
And yes, there are definately aTrolls to go with the iTrolls.
69. hepresearch (unregistered)
I understand, but how extreme do we allow ourselves to become in the process of counter-extremism? I hear you on the needing to be quite extreme in the opposite direction, but my point is... do we really need to be so extreme in order to point out the truth? So what if the extremists don't listen to us when we take the centrist view? They won't listen to us either way! They are extremists, and have decidedly chosen that it is the way they want to be... and none of us can change someone from being who they want to be. Trust me, I was married to a mean angry abusive adulteress for three and a half years because she was a member of my faith who was highly acclaimed by everyone else at church, but none of them really knew her... they, and I, only saw who she wanted them to see... and once we got married, I hung onto the hope, once I figured out what she really was, that she could change, and I tried to help her. The problem was that, no matter how much sense I made when I tried to help, it just wasn't what she thought she wanted. Apart from being a little sorry for the things she did, and making token efforts and comments about changing, she had no real desire to change. She liked being who she was. I could not help her, and in the end I got burned bad by choosing to stick around longer than most others would have.
I am not saying that none of us are centrists, I'm just saying that our commentary doesn't seem to give many decent thinking people that impression. I have what some consider some very extreme views myself, and I do my best to explain the background behind my views and what obvious public evidence I am looking at that helps me come to the conclusions I reach. I also listen to others here in order to learn because I obviously do not know everything... no one here does... and sometimes that helps me to tweak my views a little from time to time. And yes, I do still come out to play whack-a-mole with our favorite fanboy trolls once in a while, because they say rediculous stuff that they think they can get away with, often trying to pick on or slander reasonable folks on here. They choose to act that way at their own expense, and thank goodness that they do because sometimes I wonder if this place would be half as fun without them. But still, none of us who are reasonable thinkers should point the finger just at them, and not also a little bit at ourselves in honesty.
73. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
you just described remix and his band of closet trolls on the first line
"Not just them... there are also a lot more people here who fail to take that healthy dose of skepticism on select topics"
74. remixfa (Posts: 14135; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
me thinks you have no idea what skepticism means.
75. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
I do..I just dont know just dont ask me to spell it..
77. hepresearch (unregistered)
Why not? It is spelled out in the comment in front of you.
Oh Snap! Wait a minute... I think I just got what gallito is really trying to say here! He's saying that... well, he just can't bring himself to copy a word that you've written, remix. He just can't bring himself to copy... yes, he's just not a 'good artist', is he? No... he'd rather be recognized as the 'great artist' he is... like Steve said so many years ago...
78. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
hey I copied and paste... but since when this become about my grammar..