Android Central

In August, Motorola was seeking an import ban of the iPad and iPhone from the International Trade Commission due to patent infringement, but today Motorola has dropped the case. Since the seven non-standard-essential patents in question were never undisclosed, it's hard to say why exactly Motorola backed off. Motorola's statement clearly laid out that no out-of-court settlement was made, either. 

It's entirely possible that Motorola found they didn't have a strong case, or they needed to prepare more documents in order to properly sue Apple, or there were some other outside forces at play that we just plum don't know about. Conversely, Samsung has started its legal counterattack on Apple today, so the tension between Android and iOS isn't likely to let up, even if for whatever reason Google wanted to lay off legally antagonizing Apple. 

So, let's open up the floor to wild speculation as to why Motorola launched the complaint in the first place, and what could have made them retract from proceedings so close to an official investigation. 

Via: FOSS Patents

 
There are 19 comments

Suntan says:

Obviously the ghost of SJ came rattling chains in the dead of night for a couple of Google executives…

-Suntan

NavyVet420 says:

Or.. Perhaps, Google which now owns Motorola Mobility said, WAIT lets bundle this all together along with Sammy to bring down Big Fruity.

WE the consumer loses every time Big Fruity puts out an iphoney or imaxipad product. They manipulate the ITC and Patent laws and claim things that are fair use as their own. Big Fruity will ultimately be their own worst enemy.

Big Fruity and GOP are one in the same. Both want to limit choices and make this nation ruled by monopolies.

The Ghost of SJ? LMAO.. What a hack.. He stole most of his "ideas" from others.

Evil Hamster says:

GOP? Really?

When it's all democrat party creating and protecting monopolies and reducing competition and choice. That's a fact and not even debateable.

phor11 says:

Which monopolies have the Democrats created and/or protected exactly?

diskoman69 says:

Considering that the GOP is the party that has continually tried to strip regulatory authority and budget from a wide variety of governmental agencies that have a role in ensuring there is competition and choice your statement is laughable. SEC, FCC, DOJ, LOC, I could keep going on and on and on!

3rdpig says:

I choose to own a gun and carry one for self defense. I also choose to own large gas guzzling vehicles, heat my house with fuel oil and illuminate it using incandescent light bulbs. I want to chose my health insurance provider and my doctor and I want don't want to have a government panel decide what procedures I can have and which I can't, all based on a 2700 page document that no one really understands filled with exemptions for almost everyone but me.

I could go on and on, but I know it's a wasted effort so I'll just stop now. Both parties want to limit freedom in some way or another, thinking it's all one sided is just plain stupid.

swyost says:

I would normally ignore this sort of irrelevant blather in a tech forum but in this case it hits close to home. Anyone who spews ignorant statements about panels deciding what medical procedures can and can't be performed obviously does not have a clue as to how the CURRENT private insurance system works. Insurance companies decide every day what procedures are authorized and they do no consider what is in the best interest of the patient but rather what is in the best interest of their bottom line. Those decisions are not even made by specialists with any practical training - usually they are made by administrators, nurse practitioners, and the cheapest doctor's money can buy. I am dealing with this myself at the moment as I appeal a denial from my employer sponsored private insurance plan regarding spinal surgery that has been determined to be the only viable option by actual specialists. My insurance company's policies, BTW, would require me be incapacitated for a year before they will consider authorizing. Guess what that means for all the right-wingers who talk about the government rationing care? It means they have a policy in place to keep them from EVER authorizing surgery, unless forced by lawyers. How many people do you know who will still hold their job (and therefore have that health insurance) after being incapacitated for a year? Oh, I would pretty much need to be addicted to pain killers for 6 months as well, but wait, they also have exclusions if the patient may be addicted to medications. These are not unusual practices but are instead industry standard and my insurer is one of the largest in the country (with their warm and friendly ads on during prime time television).

I really do hope that those who spew ignorance and lies about health care are never confronted with the reality of the system when they (or a loved one) need care. I don't actually wish this on anyone. By the same token though, to anyone who claims that the federal law is just too complex to understand, here is a suggestion. Put down the beer; turn off the football game; and (if necessary) go get that GED. Federal laws are barely written to even a high school reading level. It may be a long document but it is not difficult to understand and even comes with summaries, TOCs, glossaries, and primers. That line is just standard BS from people who just want to hate something rather than understand it.

As a final comment, you might ask yourself why the existing US health care system ranks so shockingly low in comparison to other countries, but ranks at the very top for health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP. The system that has existed in this country for decades is appalling and has been perpetuated only to line the pockets of insurance companies, lawyers, and pharmaceutical companies.

Nev says:

Magnificent.

Rob White says:

Your name is pretty funny actually. Since the political party you must support is so opposed to free thought or just most freedoms in general. But hey it's a tech blog about Android. Anybody can act like a fool here.

mech1164 says:

Geez are you really that stupid?

Please inform me where the evidence is of what you say. Concrete ones not just talking points.

If anything it's more true that both sides are in the hip pocket of some business. That's the real enemy all the easy money for some SMALL FAVORS. As far as i'm concerned both sides can go off a cliff to fast. Oh and while they are at it take the EPA AND HHS with them.

Magnus#AC says:

Apple just reminds me of the big evil democratic party. They want to control everything and decide exactly what you can do and what your limits are. But Android, like the GOP, want to create a great platform that doesn't restrict you and let's you be what you choose you want to be. If you choose to create POS phones like LG then you make no money but if you create awesome phones like Samsung, you make a lot of money, no bailing out idiots and lazy people with a malignant sense of entitlement.

NickA says:

Cue the Apple haters. It's a shame some people can't have an intelligent discussion.

Anyway, maybe Moto decided to put their money and efforts into some kick a** phones instead of making yet another version of the Droid Razx.

CMercs says:

Or maybe Apple said "Hey, that map thing, how about if you drop that lawsuit we'll pay you to fix or Maps app..." :D

ollyb1 says:

apple and sammy should follow suite to this just drop the lawsuites and focus on making ur products better

Dan29466 says:

"Since the seven non-standard-essential patents in question were never undisclosed"

So, they were disclosed from the very start? That's whatcha just said.

clearzero says:

They need to correct this. It is a critical part of the article.

So, if the patents were not disclosed how do we know they were "not" standards essential. There is no way we can take Moto's word for it.

Are we really comparing Apple and Android with Denocrats and Republicans? I would think that we were better than this.

milesmcever says:

Maybe apple is like both parties old crappy and need to be replaced...

Now stop the political crap and back on subject. Wonder how much this has to do with the talks Google and Apple have been having maybe Motorola had something which finally made apple own up and settle with someone.

JobiWan144 says:

Or, maybe the suit was in the works before the acquisition was finalized, but then Google decided to kill it because of "don't be evil." Part of me hopes this is true.

The other part of me wants someone to sue Apple and win, just to show that Apple has been copying others' IP, too. Nevertheless, I'd prefer the result be Apple paying royalties instead of an import ban. Every time a device gets banned, people lose choice, eventually leading to less innovation. The competition between different platforms is good for all of us because it forces everyone to innovate so we keep buying their products. Without iPhones, Android devices would be less user-friendly (i.e. more like the BlackBerries of old), and without Android, iPhones would be less functional (Notification Center, 4G LTE, and a bigger screen, for example).