Motorola eins - Apple nichts

[Simon]

A German court has ruled in Motorola Mobility's favour in a patents dispute with Apple.

The Android smartphone maker had complained that Apple failed to license one of its wireless intellectual properties.  Apple uses the technology in its iPhones and 3G iPads.

Motorola could now try to force Apple to remove the feature from its devices or halt sales in Germany. However, Apple said it intended to appeal.  Motorola said the ruling validated its "efforts to enforce its patents against Apple's infringement".

Apple responded: "We're going to appeal the court's ruling right away. Holiday shoppers in Germany should have no problem finding the iPad or iPhone they want."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16112259

[Glenn]

1-1 at half time?

[Simon]

 

[Rik]

I'd like Motorola to win for a change, as it would give Simon a chance to buy their Kevlar phone, and he could throw that at the wall with impunity.

[Simon]

 

[Steve]

The money involved in these court cases is amazing , if Motorola should win the first round and prevent iPhone/iPad sales in Germany, Apple requested that Motorola pay a $2.7 billion bond to the court for lost revenue should Apple win on appeal.

[Rik]

And I thought my solicitor was expensive.

[Glenn]

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/09/2011120901290.html

[Steve]

Sorry wrong number this was per year over a six year period i.e. $16.2 billion

[Rik]

Money makes the world go around

[Glenn]

How come Apple can use the FRAND principle, but Samsung can't?

"FRAND says a company can use core technology if it is essential for a product to work so long as it pays reasonable royalties. In reality that means a company can make the product first and pay later."

[Rik]

That struck me as odd, what have Apple got that Samsung haven't? Is it that Apple is about IP not core technology?

[pctech]

There is another important factor here, Motorola Mobility is now a wholly owned Google subsidiary, Apple cannot really afford lengthy legal battles with a company of similar size to itself based in the US who could make it very difficult for them as Google pretty much owns the search market now and if it's services won't work with Apple products then people might defect to Android.

[Technical Ben]

That struck me as odd, what have Apple got that Samsung haven't? Is it that Apple is about IP not core technology?

Yep. Rounded corners (IE the look) is not "essential" in the eyes of the law. A battery, antenna or codec for voice comms is essential for a phone. AFAIK FRAND only means you have to licence it, the price can still be high. Where as a patent without FRAND can be kept as your own. Apple sued over copyright, not patents.

[Rik]

Thanks, Ben.