Motorola sues Apple over iPhone and iCloud

Motorola is going after Apple's two most recent product launches in a new lawsuit filed earlier this week. According to Foss Patents, Motorola claims in the lawsuit that Apple violated six of Motorola's patents with its iPhone 4S smartphone. Motorola also claims four of the same patents have been violated by Apple's recent iCloud online storage service.

Some of Motorola's patents that are included in the lawsuit are, "U.S. Patent No. 5,710,987" which deals with a "receiver having concealed external antenna", "U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737" which refers to an "apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device" and "U.S. Patent No. 6,377,161" which has to do with a "method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information".

The story points out that Google most likely authorized Motorola to file this new lawsuit against Apple. Google is in the middle of acquiring Motorola for $12.5 billion. One of the provisions of that merger agreement is that Motorola cannot make any actions such as a lawsuit without approval from Google. So far, Apple has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Facebook down for ten minutes, Anonymous claims responsibility

Next Story

TechSpot: Graphics Card Overclocking, Is It Really Worth It?

42 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The positive thing about this is that perhaps Apple and Motorola will bundle cross licenes. And and if Google is allowed to buy Motorola, Apple will have to find something else to attack Android manufacturers with.

In the case of Apple going after Motorola, Apple is new to mobile technologies, so it might have to watch out for the mind field of patents formed by vets such as the Motorolas, Nokias, etc. they are they want avoid getting angry.

SK[ said,]"receiver having concealed external antenna"

Really? I had this on my Nokia 3210i back in 1999.

Good thing the patent is from 1993 which means it could have been licensed. Word of advise, don't just read the news article when it comes to a patent. You can't possibly make an informed comment based on what the article says the patent is. Notice it says "deals with" and not "has a" That means having a concealed external antenna does not violate this patent in any way. The patent is about the setup of the concealed external antenna, not the fact that it has one. Patents are far more complicated in most cases than Neowin ever reports because A) the focus of the story is not about the patent, it is about Apple being sued and B) most people don't understand what is said in the patent anyway. That is why they give a gross simplification which makes people, such as yourself, make statements that unintentionally amount to nothing more than troll bait.

i always laughed when some google-fan idiots swallowed the "don't be evil" bullcrap and kept saying their best friend would never sue for patents or did not bought Motorola for its patent portfolio

they were the losers of this side of the field, now they bought some ammunition

for anyone's kind interest: that is how companies operate...

Morden said,
i always laughed when some google-fan idiots swallowed the "don't be evil" bullcrap and kept saying their best friend would never sue for patents or did not bought Motorola for its patent portfolio

they were the losers of this side of the field, now they bought some ammunition

for anyone's kind interest: that is how companies operate...

The only real value Motorola had was in their patent portfolio. Anyone that doesn't see that that was the reason for the purchase has to be blind...

Taxpayers are the ones getting screwed with all these silly lawsuits; we're the ones literally and figuratively paying for it. Something needs to change.

thornz0 said,
Taxpayers are the ones getting screwed with all these silly lawsuits; we're the ones literally and figuratively paying for it. Something needs to change.

How so? Corporations pay taxes just like the rest of us. Those fund the courts, among other things. The lawyers that will argue for both sides will be paid for privately by the said corporations.

So the net cost to society seems to balance itself out.

Frazell Thomas said,

How so? Corporations pay taxes just like the rest of us. Those fund the courts, among other things. The lawyers that will argue for both sides will be paid for privately by the said corporations.

So the net cost to society seems to balance itself out.

Corporations pay taxes ... yea ... right. They just pay clever financial institutions to get around all of that with "creative accounting". Just look at Vodafone in the UK.

bushbrother said,

Corporations pay taxes ... yea ... right. They just pay clever financial institutions to get around all of that with "creative accounting". Just look at Vodafone in the UK.

Oh here we go... I am so tired of hearing this ridiculous argument. Companies file taxes the same we do and can make deductions just as we can. People need to get over this. Corporations paying higher taxes only increases the cost of goods and the cost of living anyway (Which you no doubt would also whine about), so how about we drop it? LOL

M_Lyons10 said,

Oh here we go... I am so tired of hearing this ridiculous argument. Companies file taxes the same we do and can make deductions just as we can. People need to get over this. Corporations paying higher taxes only increases the cost of goods and the cost of living anyway (Which you no doubt would also whine about), so how about we drop it? LOL

For corporations and unlike for actual people, taxes are a percentage of profits, not of revenue, so this is false. Taxes do not increase cost of goods or cost of living.

dzym said,

For corporations and unlike for actual people, taxes are a percentage of profits, not of revenue, so this is false. Taxes do not increase cost of goods or cost of living.

And for corporations and unlike for actual people, profits come in many different forms. Investment profit is taxed at a lower rate. Donations can be written off. The list goes on and on. Please at least know the basics of how business tax works before making a bad assumption...

dzym said,

For corporations and unlike for actual people, taxes are a percentage of profits, not of revenue, so this is false. Taxes do not increase cost of goods or cost of living.

100%.... false. Everything is taxed in the US. Profits = Revenue - Cost. The cost's are in the form of materials, labor, etc. When you buy materials, those are taxed. When you pay labor, they are taxed, meaning you have to pay them more to keep them happy. The point of business is to make the highest profits for its stockholders any way legally possible. If the cost goes up, profits go down. On top of that, the profits don't usually go into some bank vault. They are spent somewhere to keep the business growing. When it is spent, it is taxed.

It is no different for people. Our paychecks are taxed, and whatever we have left over is then taxed again when we spent it. Money never changes hands in the US without being taxed in some way.

ILikeTobacco said,

100%.... false. Everything is taxed in the US. Profits = Revenue - Cost. The cost's are in the form of materials, labor, etc. When you buy materials, those are taxed. When you pay labor, they are taxed, meaning you have to pay them more to keep them happy. The point of business is to make the highest profits for its stockholders any way legally possible. If the cost goes up, profits go down. On top of that, the profits don't usually go into some bank vault. They are spent somewhere to keep the business growing. When it is spent, it is taxed.

It is no different for people. Our paychecks are taxed, and whatever we have left over is then taxed again when we spent it. Money never changes hands in the US without being taxed in some way.

Exactly. And you do not need to make a profit to be taxed either. I always love these people mouthing off all of their business wisdom when they really have no idea what they are talking about.

thornz0 said,
Taxpayers are the ones getting screwed with all these silly lawsuits; we're the ones literally and figuratively paying for it. Something needs to change.

wtf do tax payers have to do with it? Apple and Motorola pay all legal costs, including costs for the use of the court.

While maybe true, and maybe not, it would be illegal for Google to have any say in Motorola's business before the merger is finalized.

This is identical to Microsoft having no control over Skype before the actual takeover.

pickypg said,
While maybe true, and maybe not, it would be illegal for Google to have any say in Motorola's business before the merger is finalized.

This is identical to Microsoft having no control over Skype before the actual takeover.

What law would they be breaking? Using your example, Skype agreed to be bought by MS. But let's suppose that while waiting for govt. approval, Skype decided to open source their code. When buying companies, there is usually an agreement made that no big changes will be made to protect the value of the purchase. If Google and Motorola made such an agreement (you can sign a contract without any transfer of money) and according to the article they did, then they need to uphold that agreement.

If that is what they agreed to, and Moto did it without Google's approval, they would not be breaking a law, but they would be in violation of a contract.

nohone said,

What law would they be breaking? Using your example, Skype agreed to be bought by MS. But let's suppose that while waiting for govt. approval, Skype decided to open source their code. When buying companies, there is usually an agreement made that no big changes will be made to protect the value of the purchase. If Google and Motorola made such an agreement (you can sign a contract without any transfer of money) and according to the article they did, then they need to uphold that agreement.

If that is what they agreed to, and Moto did it without Google's approval, they would not be breaking a law, but they would be in violation of a contract.

+1. And I don't blame Google at all for not wanting them to start any costly and possibly damaging litigation leading up to the purchase. If they sued and lost, it would make Motorolla less valuable to Google.

I'm not for patent bully, but it's kinda funny when people over reacting to this kind of thing. 100M is a drop in the bucket for Apple. They can devour Motorola in a blink with all that cash in the bank. I hope Google would hurry up with their purchase already to get this coldwar "nuclear".

flexkeyboard said,
I'm not for patent bully, but it's kinda funny when people over reacting to this kind of thing. 100M is a drop in the bucket for Apple. They can devour Motorola in a blink with all that cash in the bank. I hope Google would hurry up with their purchase already to get this coldwar "nuclear".

I believe it's going through some regulatory hurdles (As it should). We'll have to see what happens, though I honestly expect the sale to be approved.

chadlachlanross said,
Can we have patent reform already!?

Agreed. I have always been against anyone OWNING an idea, it's ridiculous.

Arexx said,

Agreed. I have always been against anyone OWNING an idea, it's ridiculous.

you own car, you own house, but no one should one their own ideas?? how ridiculos

nitins60 said,

you own car, you own house, but no one should one their own ideas?? how ridiculos


but the trouble is that someone halfway round the world could of thought of the same idea you just did and not get anything for his idea

mrpakiman said,

but the trouble is that someone halfway round the world could of thought of the same idea you just did and not get anything for his idea

and that's why you can get patents for each country.

mbowman said,

and that's why you can get patents for each country.

Person A thinks of idea, person B thinks of same idea. Both person's thought of the same idea, but was not aware of the other person. Person A finds out and sues person B for stealing their idea, even though person B thought of it all by themselves. How is that possibly fair? That's why ideas should not be patentable.

Majesticmerc said,

Person A thinks of idea, person B thinks of same idea. Both person's thought of the same idea, but was not aware of the other person. Person A finds out and sues person B for stealing their idea, even though person B thought of it all by themselves. How is that possibly fair? That's why ideas should not be patentable.

how can you prove person B really had this idea by his own. that's how patent works and it should be

chadlachlanross said,
Can we have patent reform already!?

I would support patent reform as it relates to software / technology. It just doesn't work as well as it does in other industries. I'm not entirely sure what would really work to be honest, because it's really quite a mess. But some of these patents are just silly. Concealing an antenna? I support people being able to own their ideas. I do. But something really does need to be done. It's hindering advancement at this point.

nitins60 said,

how can you prove person B really had this idea by his own. that's how patent works and it should be

Conversely, how can you prove he stole it? Innocent until proven guilty remember, and if it's all in their heads, how can you prove it. You can't, therefore intellectual property cannot work in the patent system. You can't own an idea, because it's not ownable, if someone has the same idea as you, they didn't take your idea, they created the exact same idea in their head. You can however own an implementation, which is perfectly acceptable under the patent system.

JesseJ said,
Good. Apple deserves this after their ridiculous lawsuit over hyperlinks.

A company "deserving" it is a very immature response. If the claims are valid then take it to court. If not, don't or at least have it thrown out.

Apple have a right and moreover a duty to protect their patents (look it up, it's law). As do Motorola.

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure if anyone "deserves" to have their ass sued, it's Apple. Seriously, spending $100,000,000 in suits just to fail shows they just want blood, they're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

Did you still want to take about maturity?

greenwizard88 said,
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure if anyone "deserves" to have their ass sued, it's Apple. Seriously, spending $100,000,000 in suits just to fail shows they just want blood, they're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

Did you still want to take about maturity?


Excuse me, but I think someone forgot to read the description of the patents Motorola is filing lawsuits against Apple for in that article... Note that those patents are not just applicable to Apple, but to almost EVERY CELL PHONE MAKER!

If this were a "legitimate" lawsuit for patent infringement, then Motorola would be filing this against all manufacturers... They're filing it specifically at Apple because they know they can PAY them the most IF they win.

Want to talk about immaturity again? Motorola is showing it's hand as a money-hungry conglomerate, which cannot innovate on it's own so goes after others' money to make money. Have you ever had to deal with Motorola for Sales, Support, or HR? If you did, your thoughts on the matter would be different.

Let them sue Apple, and let Apple win the case, and counter-sue them to hell!

-=MagMan=- said,

If this were a "legitimate" lawsuit for patent infringement, then Motorola would be filing this against all manufacturers... They're filing it specifically at Apple because they know they can PAY them the most IF they win.

Let them sue Apple, and let Apple win the case, and counter-sue them to hell!

LMAO...are you for real?

Apple has filed numerous lawsuits against Samsung over android. Why dont they go after the other manufacturers as well, or Google itself?

-=MagMan=- said,

Excuse me, but I think someone forgot to read the description of the patents Motorola is filing lawsuits against Apple for in that article... Note that those patents are not just applicable to Apple, but to almost EVERY CELL PHONE MAKER!

If this were a "legitimate" lawsuit for patent infringement, then Motorola would be filing this against all manufacturers... They're filing it specifically at Apple because they know they can PAY them the most IF they win.

Want to talk about immaturity again? Motorola is showing it's hand as a money-hungry conglomerate, which cannot innovate on it's own so goes after others' money to make money. Have you ever had to deal with Motorola for Sales, Support, or HR? If you did, your thoughts on the matter would be different.

Let them sue Apple, and let Apple win the case, and counter-sue them to hell!

You mean how Apple is currently going after Samsung because of the look and feel of the Galaxy Tab? Which looks just like most TVs and digital photo frames?

Edit: Hmmm no idea why it placed my reply here

nik louch said,

A company "deserving" it is a very immature response. If the claims are valid then take it to court. If not, don't or at least have it thrown out.

Apple have a right and moreover a duty to protect their patents (look it up, it's law). As do Motorola.

shhh shhhh no... lately apple have been suing companies like samsung just because apples patents could possibly relate to their products...