The US International Trade Commission has been unable to find evidence that Motorola is infringing Apple's patents, so has declined Cupertino's filing for an import ban, though the fight continues. The ruling is an initial determination, and still has to be approved by full commission – after which it will no doubt be appealed …
On the balance of probability
Chances of Motorola using more of Apples patents than Apple is using Motorola's patents has be be less than the chances of winning the lottery every week till the end of time.
If I were the gods of Cupertino I'd be looking to sue the ass off my own legal department for stirring up a hornets nest they stand no chance of beating.
From what we know from the inner workings of Apple, mainly from job biography, this whole messed was created by Steven Jobs himself who vowed to spend all of Apple cash to defeat Google.
Apple legal department are just following their bosses orders.
It's too bad Eternal Leader can never rescind his exhortation unto his followers to drive Android into the sea.
Exactly. Extortionists might have their short term gains but it just means when they get whacked back it's10x harder, and entirely of their own making.
As I heard somewhere...
"If you suddenly find it very easy to drive your enemies into the sea, double check that everyone is in front of you."
Which is always the case, as far as patent wars are concerned.
That is very apt here. I guess the other part of that, is if you push your enemies to the sea while playing "El_Degüello", expect the enemy to fight back with some extra ferocity.
Apple tried to sue nearly the whole planet on patents that were dubious at best. What I find interesting is most of the current lawsuits are similar to the old look and feel suits from the 80's that dragged out into the 90's. The culmination of which was Apple lost, and Win95 was born free of any UI restrictions. Their lawyers *should* be brighter than that, but maybe it was Jobs pushing them to do it anyway? He *was* pretty ill for the last several years, and I've seen upclose the tragedy of how vicious people can get due to cancer as it hits the terminal phase and gets to the brain.
I still maintain that Apple *could* have sued on some Trademark issues legitimately. I question the whole suing on unpatentable items (and ones that have numerous examples of prior art at that) and losing the opportunity to do the Trademark lawsuits (that stand a good chance of success) due to running into the statute of limitations? Mr Cook, fire Steve's attorneys and get some that will stand up to you and tell you what they think, and actually give you proper legal counsel. The more information that comes out, the more I think the board should have forcibly removed Jobs ages ago.
@admiraljkb: Apple V Win95
Actually Apple Won that case.
The judgement was ultimately that MS had copied Apple.
They'd copied the design of the waste basket icon.
So I think they were awarded something like 5 bucks.
@Dazed and Confused Yup. I said it at the time that Apple filed suit. Motorola invented the commercial cellular phone - on both sides of the transmission. They've been active in the radio business as long as there's been one, getting patents the whole time. Apple is in a world of hurt here, and they didn't have to be. Moto normally isn't litigious.
@Dazed and Confused - Apple v Win2.x/3.x
Actually I was referring to the case that Apple lost on Windows back in the 3.x era. The result was Microsoft was pretty much freed from any/all design limitations and did Windows 95's UI freed from Program Manager, which *then* infringed on the trashcan. :) hehe But good point bringing up the trashcan, because I'd TOTALLY forgotten about that one. Pretty funny.
The other big look and feel suit back then that I was tracking (as a heavy Quattro Pro user), was Lotus vs Borland over Quattro Pro's use menu structure. Lotus lost, but by the time the decision was made, everyone (but Wordperfect) had shifted to CUA standards by then. Not to mention they were so distracted, that Excel took over from both of them, and it was game over. I miss Quattro Pro... :)
IF ALL THE MANUFACTURERS GOT TOGETHER...
Imagine the device that could be developed.
It would make what we have now look like something from the stone age.
A Horse designed by a committee?
The mind boggless...
Nurse! I want what he's having!
That sounds almost communist. Lets all have one big state owned company building one phone for the people.
Competition is what drives people to push forward.
If all the manufacturers got together...
It would be *terrible*. Never mind the hardware and software insanity, what about the countless UIs? Imagine a phone with Samsung TouchWiz, HTC Sense UI, and Motorola Motoblur on it. It would need a quad-core 2 GHz chip just to function! Which means it would need a battery the size of a book to hold a charge more than an hour. Add the iPhone's form-over-function, and you've got a paperweight that costs as much as a high-end laptop.
I bet the ITC wishes Apple would stick to going up against non-US companies. Going against a fellow American Co must have given them a serious headache... For a start they'd actually have to look at the claims before automatically siding with the American company!
@AC 16th January 2012 22:55 GMT RE: "Haha"
Another interesting thought is do any of these claims against Moto overlap with claims they are making against other companies? If they do (to some extent perhaps), it may have an effect on other legal disputes that Apple engage in in the US. This setback may possibly have larger consequences than are immediately apparent.
Once again, Apple is so cr p, it's got to try to fight EVERYTHING to keep iphonecrap in with a chance.
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...