Feeds

back to article Apple's iPhone did not rip off Googorola's wireless patent – US appeal judges

A US appeals court has upheld a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that Apple's iPhone does not infringe a patent owned by Google's Motorola Mobility division. The protected technology in question was Motorola Mobility's US Patent No. 6,272,333, which describes a "method and apparatus in a wireless …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

I just wish the courts would similarly rule against Apple once in a while.

9
8

squeeky wheels don't grease themselves. And some companies must spend a lot on grease to mitigate the problem. Whether any slippery products were applied in this particular case is a different matter but looking at some previous upheld claims by various companies you can't help but wonder.....

4
3
Anonymous Coward

If they do something wrong they would.

2
6
Anonymous Coward

Motorola is as American as they come, their stuff went up to the moon when the US was landing on it.

Google is known to spend a lot of money on lobbying, so why do you think Apple is fiddling the system here?

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Oh dear, The Borg slapped down again. It couldn't have happened to a nicer company !?

What a waste of billions those Motorola patents were...

1
1

it all depends ...

It all depends upon the evidence, m' friend.

And it seems that Apple has been mostly clean about patent infringement. Not completely by any means, but mostly. And some so many patents are (most unfortunately) vaguely written and cast a wide net, that isn't a bad track record.

For the most part, Apple doesn't do SEP patents so it seldom encounters the FRAND licensing issues that have bedeviled Samsung.

Apple has lot a few. But not any lately.

7
3
Bronze badge

Re: it all depends ...

Reasonable response Peter, but let me get paranoid with you for a second...

U.S. economy not really doing well...over evaluated IT company showing big numbers for Wall Street. Who would it hurt more to side against Apple right now?

I'm not saying this is how it always is, but it will be from time to time.

2
5
Silver badge

Re: it all depends ...

@MyBackDoor a reasonable sounding supposition for the cynical... Without a shred of (non-circumstantial) evidence to support it. If you check out Lawrence Lessig's short TED book, Lesterville, or his longer Republic Lost, you will find an extremely convincing argument for how money works and corrupts the US political system. Anyone elected to the Senate quickly learns money is required to survive and political lobbyists are the source. The Capitol as a business runs almost completely on income from lobbying.

Yet it is well known of all the major tech companies Apple spend by a long way the least on political lobbying. Such is a legacy of Steve Jobs, who, character that he was, had to all accounts, something of a "f*** y**" attitude to giving politicians money. Indeed the two companies who are amongst those spending the most are Google and Amazon. So, amongst those who understand how the political money system works, there is greater registration of eyebrow lift when the Amazon eBook case is mentioned. Just recently Barnes and Noble have announced they are abandoning the Nook eBook reader business earlier than expected and this is because Amazon was granted permission to rip up Agency model contracts and heavily discount eBooks such that all competition is essentially being snuffed out.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/barnes-and-nobles-nook-sales-hurt-by-amazons-lower-e-book-prices

Business Week point out Donna Tart's gripping new novel "The Goldfinch" Kindle price is $7.50, Nook price $14.99. This is the second, classic monopolist step the anti-trust commission was set-up to detect and eliminate. Step 1. Control the market. Step 2. Reduce prices and margins to an extent others can't match to drive them out the market (or out of business). Step 3. Raise prices.

Of course we have no evidence yet for step 3, but on that one, when there is no effective competition, cynicism *is* justified.

14
2

Re: it all depends ...

Two points:

1. The very BusinessWeek article you cite has B&N CEO Michael Huseby saying he's committed to the Nook business, not "abandoning it" as you claim.

2. The price for the Nook version of "The Goldfinch" is currently $7.50, same as the Kindle version.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: it all depends ...

If I were a retailer I would want to sell my products as I see fit. If I can make a deal great.

0
0

Re: it all depends ...

Step 3. Raise prices.

Step 4. Watch all the competitors flood back into the market.

When it comes to e-books, it doesn't need huge investments in warehouses, stock and staff to get going. It isn't the same as selling at a loss to close a competitor's factory. Nobody can keep selling at a loss to maintain a monopoly. I see nothing wrong with reducing prices and margins to an extent others can't match.

Why can't they match them? Is it greed, inefficiency or what? It's an all too rare win for the long-suffering consumer who would otherwise end up paying more for the privilege of reading electronically (and never mind the loss of the tangible paper asset that can be sold or given to a friend after reading).

0
2
Silver badge

Apple not lobbying?

Yet former Vice Pres Al Gore ends up on the Apple board. What business skills could he possibly bring to the table?

Surely Gore is there purely for his influence and connections.

Perhaps you don't need to lobby 2-bit senators if you can just tap into the system elsewhere.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple not lobbying?

Yet former Vice Pres Al Gore ends up on the Apple board. What business skills could he possibly bring to the table?

He probably came with the patents to that internet thing he invented!

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.