Source: Foss Patents
quote: German Judge Bans Androids for Swipe-Unlocking, Clueless of Prior Art
quote: Apple invented the swipe unlock on the smartphone
quote: It claims to have invented a touch unlock of a SMARTPHONE. That's one thing.
quote: So... the patent situation right now is:A) Create something innovative and incredible that an entire industry must use = you are legally obligated to license it under FRAND terms.B) Patent something obvious = embargo all devices which make use of the concept.
quote: Nobody is obliged to seek FRAND status for any particular invention or patent, it is done wholly voluntarily. The reason a company might offer a design or patent for FRAND status is one based unsurprisingly on commercial calculation, if your design is adopted as a FRAND standard then it is likely that it's use will become widespread across your industry...
quote: But Tony, you're missing the fact that Apple refused to pay Motorola for its FRAND patents.
quote: Apple are currently taking legal action
quote: But Apple was never offered a patent under the FRAND system.
quote: Unlike what the uninformed Jason Dick says
quote: When I am stating facts
quote: Apple wanted to preserve their (very normal) right to challenge the validity of the patent in the first place, not a 'provision to later prove them invalid' - which is very misleading.
quote: Apple apparently made an offer to license the patent on FRAND terms going forward. But the matter was complicated by the fact that Apple's agreement included a clause that would allow it to try and have the patent invalidated if Motorola tried to seek damages for past infringement over and above the agreed FRAND rate. Apple is in fact contesting the validity of the patent in suit in another federal court in Germany. Obviously it doesn't want to have to pay for infringing a patent that might not be valid. Unfortunately, the issue of past infringement of standards-essential patents hasn't previously been addressed in the relevant cases in Germany. As Motorola's legal team successfully argued, if a patent is infringed without a valid license, there should be some punishment in the form of monetary compensation. While competition law may require patent holders to honor FRAND agreements and offer a license going forward, the court agreed that past infringement should be treated differently.
quote: No you don't - that's like saying let's agree to pay x amount of something, but wait till I rule it invalid so you get nothing period.
quote: It could offer the slide to unlock patent as a FRAND patent
quote: So google changes the unlock gesture scheme on Honeycomb so as to change it from apples significantly.
quote: Well, not really. A judge can use his knowledge of prior art to judge the case. He does not rely on what the plantiffs and defendants present.
quote: If unsure, don't write a story bashing them for not considering art that they cannot consider because this was a lawsuit only related to infringement. Validity is a separate proceeding in Germany, so Motorola will still get its chance to invalidate the patent.Failure to review the prior art in this case doesn't show anything. The judge is deciding one issue at this proceeding: are the claims that apple asserts infringed by the device? That's it. Moto will get its chance to invalidate at a later time. Research first, write second please.
quote: I know this for a fact.
quote: A Defendant may try to use any possible hint in the claim languagethat the scope of protection is limited to a preferred embodimentdescribed in the patent specifiction.
quote: German courts should just ignore american companies trying to sue each other in germany
quote: Did you even bother to look at the patent in question? I guess you didn't, because if you did you wouldn't write article like this.--- rolleyes ---
quote: ou may correct me if I wrong but AFAIK Motorola did offer to license the standards-based patents you are talking about Apple didn't like the terms and used them anyways.
quote: So Motorola first abused it's FRAND commitment by being discriminatory and then asked a ludicrous license amount for the item. This will be struck down by the courts and bodies like the EU but it will tarnish Motorola's (and Google's) reputation.
quote: There is no evidence that anyone else pays anything like 2.5% of the value of the finished goods
quote: What evidence do you have that the particular licensing fee was ludicrous?
quote: icrosoft charges $10-$15 for its patents licensing for Android phones. That's roughly 5-10 percent of the sales revenue.
quote: Also, how is it discriminatory if Motorola offered to license directly to Apple?
quote: Either way, if Apple pays, it gets licensed -- no discrimination.
quote: Basically Apple wants to try to milk the supply chain by buying its way into certain discounted licenses (by exploiting licensing relationships between firms), while refusing to license its overly broad design and technology. That's plain anticompetitive and abusive.
quote: "Fair" is a very ambiguous term. Clearly Qualcomm was a strategic CPU supplier of Motorola, so it might offer the licensing to Qualcomm at a lower rate. If HTC got discounted FRAND CPUs, is that horrible for Motorola? No, it supports the cause.
quote: "Non-discriminatory" does not mean that a company can not license its FRAND IP at a discounted rate (less than the industry standard) or for free to key allies. It also does not mean that it HAS to license to everyone for the same rate. It merely means it cannot seek licensing ABOVE the industry standard, or deny licensing.
quote: Bor Apple -- the top smartphone maker in the world -- it likely does not want to apply the same discount, but rather wants to develop a direct (but fair) licensing relationship, so it can fully profit off its ingenuity.
quote: Seriously dumb (as ever).
quote: talking uninformed drivel again
quote: It's not that simple, though