back to article Really? Sigh. Really? Apple's lawsuit against Google is REVIVED

A US Federal Court has issued a ruling that will allow Apple and Motorola Mobility to assert certain patent claims against each other. The ruling also opens the door for Cupertino to try to seek a ban on sales of certain Android handsets. While Google will be allowed to seek damages on any of the Motorola Mobility patents in …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. dogged

    > Lucy Koh has said that additional arguments related to Apple's "data-tapping" patent (5,946,647) can be presented

    I usually just laugh at these cases but seriously, if anyone's got a patent on data-tapping it has to be either Google or the NSA.

    1. John Tserkezis

      "if anyone's got a patent on data-tapping it has to be either Google or the NSA."

      Apple stole it from the NSA. They don't innovate by admission, remember?

      1. Cynical Observer

        Ah! That "Listening (a)round Corners" technology.

  2. auburnman


    The more people in court against Apple the better. Throw enough lawyers from enough companies and those patents will be invalidated, and Apple's lawsuits will fall like dominoes.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Good

      And in the meantime the prices of all products are artificially high due to the huge court costs.

      Somebody just needs to take the USPTO out back and put it out of its (and our) misery.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Somebody just needs to take the USPTO out back

        I think I'd start with the Appeals court and then proceed to the USTPO. But in fairness to the USTPO (I know, difficult to do when they're fouling things up so badly), they're following the updated laws. So the real fault here is with Congress. As usual.

  3. Khaptain Silver badge

    Consultation fees

    A lawyer's dog, running around town unleashed, heads for a butcher shop and steals a roast. The butcher goes to the lawyer's office and asks, "if a dog running unleashed steals a piece of meat from my store, do I have a right to demand payment for the meat from the dog's owner?" The lawyer answers, "Absolutely."

    "Then you owe me $8.50. Your dog was loose and stole a roast from me today."

    The lawyer, without a word, writes the butcher a check for $8.50. The butcher, having a feeling of satisfaction, leaves.

    Three days later, the butcher finds a bill from the lawyer: $100 due for a consultation.


    The above basically sums up the majority of all these multi-beeelllion dollar cases. The lawyers always win regardless of the outcome.

    1. pepper

      Re: Consultation fees

      Hah good one, I've said it before and I say it again, employ the BOFH method of negotiations, N'th people enter, 1 person leaves, you will find a brick underneath your chairs. good luck!

      1. Mephistro Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Consultation fees (@ pepper)

        You probably have outlined what would be the most successful reality show ever made!.

        1. pepper

          Re: Consultation fees (@ pepper)

          @Mephistro, it would be the only reality show worth watching also!

    2. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Consultation fees

      And the consumer always loses, because the cost of the lawyer's bill has to be pulled back in through product sales.

  4. Mephistro Silver badge

    I've just read the patent's abstract

    And is so 'generic' that it could probably describe parts of most programs created in the last fifty years.

    IMO, if the USPTO has approved this crapatent they are beyond salvation.

    1. ~mico

      Re: I've just read the patent's abstract

      Yeah, me too. Looks like "smartlinking" to me. Have seen it in some text editors highlighting e-mails since at least '98. Have seen it in most IDEs since about the same time, it's called "syntax highlighting/completion". Can I now patent a wheel please?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    USPTO =

    USPTO = United State Patent Troll Organization.

  6. Ian Bremner

    One last thing....

    we are proud to introduce a new addition to our lineup.

    The Apple iLawsuit.

    With this great product, we don't have to spend a fortune on R&D, Production and distribution.

    No, we just patent a lot of vague assertions and the fire off iLawsuits to all the other manufacturers.

    That's right. the other companies design and build things, then we sue the arses off of them.

    (Note: Only available in the US)

  7. sandman

    I made a mistake

    Many, many years ago I switched from being an archaeologist to working in the wonderful world of technology - because the pay was much better ;-) Now I'm thinking I should have moved to the States and become a lawyer - great pay and permanent employment. I mean, you could get involved in any of the Apple/Google/Samsung cases and have a well paid job for life! It looks like an easy life, just turn up and rehash the same old arguments, post your appeal, rinse and repeat ;-)

    1. Isendel Steel

      Re: I made a mistake

      Sue, Appeal, Sleep, Repeat

    2. nematoad Silver badge

      Re: I made a mistake

      "Many, many years ago I switched from being an archaeologist to working in the wonderful world of technology..."

      Funnily enough so did I.

      As for archaeology, there's no future in it.

    3. Bucky 2

      Re: I made a mistake

      I think the point of The Wolf of Wall Street was that a person who lacks morality and an ability to emote is capable of making LOTS of money.

      So yes, you could become a lawyer and make lots of money.

      But if you HAVE either of the above attributes, you may not be able to bring yourself to do it, and there's the problem.

  8. Dan in DC

    Except that Apple keeps winning

    I get that people prefer every thing to be as cheap as possible and some patents seem dubious. I have spent a lot of my career related to software patents, usually busting them. Apple's case has merits: the "data tapping" patent is a way to get context around a string or set of numbers (i.e., recognize a phone number). It actually is pretty hard and it took Apple a long time to figure it out and even after they did people had trouble figuring out how they did it. Most people would argue that the ability to tap a phone number in an email and have your phone dial that number is a pretty useful feature. Motorola's patents are what we call "standards essential". Basically the idea is that we need standards to make everything talk to each other. The industry agrees on those standards and they almost always involve patents. The patent is useless unless a bunch of people use it. So they have to license the patent to anyone who wants it and on a reasonable basis (FRAND). It can't be large differences between licensees. Motorola is alleged to have wanted a lot more from Apple than it charged other vendors. That doesn't work for "standards essential" patents. It is all fine and good to want to low cost products, but if there isn't some reasonable protection for patents and copyrights, anyone can let one company spend the money on R&D and just do the lowest cost manufacturing. It happens that way a lot in China where ideas or outright theft occurs and there is little or no legal remedy for the firm who just has manufacturing costs and no R&D expenses.

    Let's not forget that Apple is winning nearly every one of these patents (and the trade dress lawsuit against Samsung). Apple is a pretty innovative company in many ways and where they innovate to gain a competitive advantage they should get to enjoy that advantage. Apple builds on a lot of other ideas and concepts too, so let's not say that Apple gets to do anything they want. I think the hardest part is that Google's CEO sat on the Apple board while Google was copying the iPhone and therefore had an insider's view. Companies like Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Honeywell, etc. couldn't exist without patent protection because they spend so much on R&D.

    So while there is plenty to argue about with Apple in terms of closed ecosystem, various hardware choices, and iTunes, I would say that when it comes to the patents Apple actually has a pretty strong argument.

    1. dogged

      Re: Except that Apple keeps winning

      > Most people would argue that the ability to tap a phone number in an email and have your phone dial that number is a pretty useful feature.

      Except that Skype could do it in 2006 via browser plug-in. The USPTO might not realize this but if you copy somebody else's software and put it on a different device, you still copied it. You certainly didn't "invent" it.

      1. L05ER

        Re: Except that Apple keeps winning

        I hate to be the one to point this out, but the patent was filed in 96 and published in 99.

        I don't believe this invalidates all prior art arguments, just this specific one.

        1. Dig

          Re: Except that Apple keeps winning

          Oh good only a few more years and it will have expired then.

          1. Tom 13

            Re: Oh good only a few more years and it will have expired then.

            But the Zombie lawsuits will continue because the "damage" has already occurred.

  9. Oldvalve

    Apple only wins in the USA - its extra income for them

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019