Apple wins appeal in patent case brought by Google’s Motorola

“Apple Inc does not use patented technology owned by Google unit Motorola Mobility in making its iPhones, an appeals court said on Friday,” Diane Bartz reports for Reuters.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by the International Trade Commission in April that Apple did not violate a Google patent to make the popular iPhone,” Bartz reports. “Motorola Mobility accused Apple in 2010 of infringing on six of its patents covering technology such as reducing signal noise and programming the device’s touch screen so a user’s head does not accidentally activate it while talking on the phone. The ITC ruled in April 2013 that Apple did not violate any of the six. The appeals court addressed just one of the six patents.”

Full article here.

12 Comments

    1. The plaintiff most certainly should pay ALL associated fees, including the lawyer costs of the defendant. Never should a defendant suffer from wrongful lawsuits. NEVER.

      If you’re going to sue someone, be prepared to lose and pay for EVERYTHING.

      But I dream of justice…

  1. Rest assured; Google has never known when to throw in the towel. This will probably be appealed to the highest courts where once again, they will lose to Apple. I guess it’s time for Steve Jobs to remind them; “whose your daddy now?”

      1. I wouldn’t put Page and Schmidt in the same category.

        Page tried to start and run an ethical company.

        Schmidt has never had any ethics. (He’s on record as publicly saying Google’s original slogan of “Don’t be Evil” as being the most stupid concept he had ever heard in his entire life.)

        Unfortunately Schmidt’s total lack of ethics as infected the vast majority of the company.

        1. Schmidt wasn’t at Google when the concept of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ was considered. Anyway, the phrase never was published in any Google literature that I’m aware of.

          In an interesting way, Page hiring Schmidt was analogous to Jobs hiring Sculley. Both hired CEOs went maniacal and destructive. But the outcomes for the hiring parties were different. Page managed to stick around and return to direct leadership, versus Jobs who got sick of the evil and dropped out until such time as Apple required him back again.

          So am I saying Page is more tolerant of evil? I think so.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.