http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/motorola- ... many/62715

Motorola strikes back at Apple, after Apple managed to ban the Galaxy Tab in Germany, Motorola, allegedly, have succeeded in getting all iPhone and iPad devices banned and, if they are successful, could get damages backdated to 2003!

I hate the patent wars, there are no winners, expect the lawyers. But maybe it would force Apple's hand and make them "play nice" and actually compete with the competition, as opposed to trying to ban anything which might be better than an iPhone (I note that Apple rarely take on the "little guys" who provide the entry level devices, only the high end devices, which provide a serious threat to their revenues).

Edit:

http://www.bild.de/geld/wirtschaft/appl ... .bild.html

Interesting article, in German. It could affect iPhone and iPad.

Apple DE are allowed to sell existing stocks, but no new supplies can be brought into Germany.

While the Apple's German eShop a sub-part of the American site is (and Motorola won the injunction against Apple Corp, not Apple Germany), they cannot sell iOS devices online in Germany.

Apple made a statement, that the court order banning the sale of infringing devices in Germany wouldn't affect their ability to sell the devices in Germany...

http://business.chip.de/news/Urteil-App ... 33688.html

Saw this on another site. The judgement goes against Apple Inc not Apple Germany
Apple Germany sells product there but Apple Inc doesn't.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/4/25392 ... s-not-what

I did say that, which means Apple DE can sell what is still in their warehouses. It should be the same as Samsung in September, they can sell existing stock, but Apple Inc. can't import more stock for Apple DE to sell.

How does your own medicine taste Apple?

I wonder if Apple will try and buy Motorola?

I suspect Google would sell for a profit, but they could more easily buy RIM or LGs mobile division for example. I find the idea this will make Apple decide to 'play nice' slightly amusing. There's absolutely no commercial pressure for Apple to change it's business practices. Not when they're pretty much making as much money as the rest of the mobile phone industry put together anyway. As I said when the last round of cases happened, no single EU country is a big enough market to matter to the likes of Apple or Samsung. Unless there's a ban over the whole EU or the US, it's 'business as usual' as far as all of them are concerned. The legal stuff is nuisance, not crisis.

The whole action against Android is, according to Jobs' biography, a personal vendetta, where he swore to use all the money Apple had to kill of Android.

If Apple now finds the other players pushing back, I wonder if there is the same will to fight?

Sounds like you're talking about the playground bully.

if you believe it's a playground you're giving none of them enough credit. They all see litigation as a legitimate business tactic and they all assume they're going to win some and lose some. The only people who see this as a 'fight' are the fanboys. And as for that Steve Jobs quote, do you really think Jobs was daft enough to say those things (or indeed anything) naively? Or might he have been saying it for the effect it would have when printed? That a micromanaging control freak did anything on the spur of the moment?

If it is a playground, then it's certainly a game. You're taking it much more seriously than it is.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=53.585512,-2.538091

Good. Perhaps some cross-licensing might take place, Apple and Motorola will be safe from each other, but Samsung will be as well off as it currently is...

This is how business happens. This is why patents should be abolished.

I don't think patents should be abolished, for the little guy it's sometimes the only way to reasonably get a product to market before some large company bitch-slaps you into oblivion. There needs to be a certain level of protection to allow people to reap the benefits of their good ideas. The problem is that at the moment the system is just bonkers.

It's always important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The problem for the little guy is that although you might have one patent, you've probably crushed half a dozen multi-national patents in the process, leaving yourself open to having to sign a cross-license or be taken to court. Both generally wouldn't be favourable for "the little guy".
IMO, patents are really only good for big companies that have the money to defend them, and the portfolio of them to do whatever they need to do.