Apple v Motorola

Judge Posner has thrown out the entire case in the on-again, off-again Apple versus Motorola dispute. Citing that neither side was able to produce any real damages, both sides have been sent packing. The case has been in jeopardy for several weeks now, and Posner has previously dismissed the jury trial that was requested. The trial that started way back in 2010, long before Google came into the picture, is finally finished.

The full opinion and order is embedded after the break (courtesy Chris Ziegler of The Verge), but the tl;dr version is that there will be no injunctions, neither Apple nor Motorola sees any money from each other, and we, the consumers, finally win one. Hooray!

Source: The Verge

 

Reader comments

Judge dismisses Apple and Motorola's patent squabbles

25 Comments

The only good news....shouldn't be any new lawsuits until September, as Apple's lawyers will hopefully take the summer off.

Sort of. That decision was a win for both. Samsung will get royalties (which Apple proved they had had negotations over, and Samsung was told point blank it cannot use FRAND patents to get injunctions.

We need lawyers to read all this double talk. Bottom line: judge told both sides to shut up and go away. Couldn't the judge have just say so? You want smaller government? First thing to do...cut the crap.

how do we win? both sides just wasted tons of cash on lawyers for 2 years. whos gonna pay all those fees?! we....ummm you are!!!! (ive never brought either of those brands) samsung needs to get themselves out of court now.

The alternative would be someone from Motorola telling you what Apple products you can and can not buy, or someone from Apple telling you what Motorola products you can and can not buy. Telling them both to GTFO instead is a win for you and me.

Jerry is spot on in that it is the best outcome, despite the costs incurred up to this point. At least there's precedent now that these mindless patent wars won't be tolerated.

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Moto had one live claim in this thing. Apple had four or five. If I'm Moto, drinks are on me.

Now if they would through Apple out of court maybe they could go back to designing and building phones again. And delivering them on time.

To bad Apple can't be fined 40 or 50 million for tying up the US court system with frivolous lawsuits.

The fact that none of them have been thrown out immediately proves they're not frivolous.

You should note (as should all posters here) that the judge didn't rule on whether either side infringed on the other's patents, which is important. The sole reason he threw it out is because neither side could prove how much infringement was worth.

Didn't apple sue first and then Motorola Mobility counter sued?

If that indeed is the case, then MM effectively won this, in my book!

The patent lawyer (hell spawn) fees here are chicken feed compared to any potential damages and or to the potential profit loss due to any product bans or injunctions!

No, Moto started this one primarily because Apple had already gone for HTC and Samsung. It was pre-emptive, they knew Apple had to have their eye on Moto too.

Yup. And if I recall correctly (it's been quite some time now), Apple had already publicly stated their intention to take Moto to court too.

I read on Goggle+ that the judge ruled that Apple infringed on Motorola Patents for 3G on the iPhone,iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS, As well as the iPad 1 and 2 and has ordered an injunction against Apple

No. Posner specifically said that Motorola did not prove that it deserved an injunction (same with Apple), citing a number of factors. That includes the FRAND argument.

The case you're referring to was in the Netherlands and with Samsung, but the judges there said Samsung had no right whatsoever to an injunction because it was bound by its FRAND obligations.

Any patent that without use would completely eliminate competition, for example patenting the idea of wirelessly transmitting data from a device over a cellular network, is covered by FRAND and licensing of the patent is mandatory. Best case for moto was additional income, but it wouldnt stop apple because licensing would be mandatory.

This is the best outcome for consumers. Moto and apples alleged damages were called a wash and everyone got sent home. Moto doesnt need to pay or make changes for apple, and same goes for apple paying moto. All devices remain unchanged and neither pays licensing which ultimately consumers pay in the way of higher device costs.