It's all over in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Motorola after a judge threw their case out of court. Judge Richard Posner had tentatively dismissed it a couple of weeks ago, but now he's done so in its entirety.
Apple alleged Motorola had violated four of its patents, with Motorola claiming one in return, The Verge reports. The case has been going on since 2010, making this latest development quite a big deal as tech legal spats go.
Posner dismissed it because neither side could prove how much money the alleged patent infringements have cost them. And with both companies asking for financial compensation, it'd be pointless blocking products from sale.
"Both companies have deep pockets," Posner says in his 38-page decision. "And neither had acknowledged that damages for the infringement of its patents could not be estimated with tolerable certainty."
Apple declined to comment, but Motorola said in a statement: "We are pleased that Judge Posner formally dismissed the case against Motorola Mobility. Apple's litigation campaign began with their attempt to assert 15 patents against us. As it relates to Apple's violation of our patents, we will continue our efforts to defend our own innovation."
Apple could appeal, but I don't fancy its chances. Judge Posner warned Apple's lawyers about filing too many motions last month, so he's not one for shilly-shallying.
The patent disputes have spanned both sides of the Atlantic, with Motorola succeeding in having some Apple devices banned from sale in Germany. Though that was overturned pretty quickly. Apple won the dispute over the slide-to-unlock patent though, with Motorola infringing on its devices except for the Xoom.
I think the ruling is good news, as hopefully it'll dissuade companies from firing writs at each other at the drop of a hat. Now Apple and Google (which owns Motorola) can get back to making great products.
What do you reckon? Let me know in the comments, or on our Facebook page.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 1
Add your comment
blueglacia 23 June, 2012 22:17
US Patent system was invented to promote innovation, competition and commerce by providing protection in the form of temporary monopoly for the original inventors during early stage development and marketing so that the inventors would be encouraged to bring innovation to market without being ambushed by powerful companies or copycats.
The key concepts are Temporary Monopoly and Original Inventions. It was never meant to create durable intellectual property to be used by patent trolls or to penalize competition. Derivative products and copying of ideas were viewed as a natural part of innovation and market competition. Patent system was not meant to be used against that process, but rather to encourage proliferation of original inventions (which would naturally give rise to competition and further innovation).
Patent system has been grossly misguided and distorted by the IP profession (lawyers), misunderstood and unjustly dispensed by our legal system, neglected by the government to evolve it to fit modern technology context, and grossly misused by larger corporations (who do not even need the temporary monopoly protection in order to innovate) to block competition.
If the government is sleeping at the helm and does not see the urgent need to evolve ancient patent system, how are we to bring about the changes required? Relying on the intelligence of our courts to uphold original goal of the patents is not the most reliable path, but currently our only hope.
In my opinion, optimal application of the patents should protect unique technology and specific design, but not the form, function or concept.
Patents should be allowed to be transferred for the purpose of placing the patented technology in the stream of commerce by actual beneficial use, but not for patent trolling, re-licensing or elimination of competition (once the patent holder has achieved commercial access to market).
Infringement claims shall not be awarded in the absence of realized damages as defined by the patent laws.
Further, again in my opinion, there shall be special exclusions to limit larger companies (e.g., above annual revenue of $100M or market cap of $500M) from wielding patents as bullying/offensive tools against competition and derivative innovations.