The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Motorola parks tanks on Apple's German lawn

We're not FRANDs any more, argue MotoMobe

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

Motorola Mobility has gained an injunction against Apple sales in Germany, through careful application of owed royalties on previous infringements, but enforcing it will cost Motorola €100m in bond money.

That money has to be lodged with the court in case a later ruling overrides this decision. It's a lot less than the €2bn Apple asked the court to demand, and Motorola might decide not to ask for the injunction to be enforced until Apple's inevitable appeal has been dealt with, but it's still a victory for the company that aspires to being Google's mobile wing.

This is the same case during which Apple earned a default ruling by failing to turn up in court, but while Cupertino dismissed that as "a procedural issue" this time it's a proper ruling which could be used to prevent Apple products being sold in Germany.

The ruling, hosted and translated by patent watcher Florian Mueller, covers a patent which is almost certainly essential to the GPRS standard, and as such is subject to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) licensing. But under German law the potential licensee of a FRAND patent cannot attach conditions to their licence, something Apple appears to want to do.

The conditions relate to possible previous infractions. Apple has been making GPRS-compatible phones for a while now and wants any historical infraction to be at FRAND rates while reserving the right to do without a licence if it can prove the patent invalid or inapplicable during the ongoing court case.

Those conditions have enabled Motorola to reject Apple's licence offer, and thus sue to get the injunction, in Germany at least.

There will, no doubt, be an appeal, so this is one more round rather than any decisive victory or conclusion, but it's a round we can award to Motorola Mobility. ®

Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything

Did Apple and IPCom have to do the same?

Just curious, did Apple or IPCom have to provide a bond for their injunction requests against Samsung and HTC respectively? Or is there a special reason for it in this case?

5
0

In the words of Nelson Muntz

HA HA

2
0

IF YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY...

YOU WILL hear the sound of how the mighty has fallen.

1
0

More from The Register

Samsung Galaxy Note 8: Proof the pen is mightier?
Sammy’s iPad Mini killer has a stylus to stab other rivals too
First look: iOS 7 for iPad
No, Apple hasn't released it yet, but that doesn't stop intrepid devs
 breaking news
Curtain drops on Apple Store ahead of WWDC: What lies behind?
Steve Jobs watching from on high. No pressure, lads
 breaking news
Cold, dead hands of Steve Jobs slip from iPhones: The Cult of Ive is upon us
Billionaire biz baron's death clears way for uber-shiny iOS 7
Airbus imagines suitcases that find themselves
Point your mobe at your smalls to track their every move
Microsoft lures buy-curious vixens, corduroys with a cheap fondle
Surface slab sales latest: Will no one rid Ballmer of these turbulent tabs?
Surprise! Intel smartphone trounces ARM in power trials
Tests show equal performance while sipping significantly less juice
Samsung plans LTE Advanced version of Galaxy S4
1Gbps download capability could stiffen drooping S4 sales forecasts
Apple said to be 'exploring' 5.7-inch iPhone
Who's the copycat this time, Mr. Cook?
Google Chromebooks now in over 6,600 stores
Major, worldwide retail push begins this summer