• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • ITC to Revisit Previous Decision between Apple and Motorola


    The U.S. International Trade Commission recently announced that it will be reviewing an administrative law judge’s decision that previously cleared Apple of infringing on certain Motorola patents, which in turn allowed the company to continue iPhone sales in the country. More specifically, the commission will be revisiting the validity of a ruling from the Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender.

    One of the issues brought up is a proximity sensor patent that shuts off a handset’s display when it is raised to a user’s ear, thereby preventing errant touches and accidental hang ups. As pointed out by the folks at Bloomberg, the patent is the last assertion remaining in Motorola’s case against Apple since the ITC previously cleared the Cupertino California company of infringing upon declared standard-essential 3G properties in August of last year.

    In the initial determination, Judge Pender found that Motorola’s U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 for "Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device" was not substantially different. Motorola ended up claiming that the earlier patent was limited to physical push buttons while its own property covered touch screens used in modern smartphones. As of right now, the commission is said to focus on the exact meaning of the claim limitation of “touch sensitive input device” as asserted in Motorola’s patent language with this review. The commission has scheduled to make the final decision on April 22.

    Source: Bloomberg
    This article was originally published in forum thread: ITC to Revisit Previous Decision between Apple and Motorola started by Akshay Masand View original post
    Comments 7 Comments
    1. cgfusion's Avatar
      cgfusion -
      This is such BS, they made their decision, stop wasting our Tax money on something you already decided. Our US government needs to seriously start supporting US companies, just like other countries courts protect their companies.
    1. CZroe's Avatar
      CZroe -
      Quote Originally Posted by cgfusion View Post
      This is such BS, they made their decision, stop wasting our Tax money on something you already decided. Our US government needs to seriously start supporting US companies, just like other countries courts protect their companies.
      Motorola is a US company, genius.
    1. perealb's Avatar
      perealb -
      Quote Originally Posted by CZroe View Post
      Motorola is a US company, genius.
      LOL. You're right but it's still wrong to revive something that was already settled.
    1. CZroe's Avatar
      CZroe -
      Quote Originally Posted by perealb View Post
      LOL. You're right but it's still wrong to revive something that was already settled.
      Not if it was settled incorrectly. That's like saying that it's wrong to free an innocent man on death row because his guilt was already settled. It's wrong to convict an innocent man in the same way that it's wrong to punish or decide against an innocent party in a lawsuit.
    1. Mrteacup's Avatar
      Mrteacup -
      Technically it's double jeopardy. They are looking at different terms if they are revisiting a settled agreement.
    1. jOnGarrett's Avatar
      jOnGarrett -
      Quote Originally Posted by cgfusion View Post
      This is such BS, they made their decision, stop wasting our Tax money on something you already decided. Our US government needs to seriously start supporting US companies, just like other countries courts protect their companies.
      do you say the same when others win their case against apple? do you say "move on"? apple gets awarded vague and broad patents all the time, they sue and win. In this case as with others, Judges say the patent lawsuits brought against apple must be more specific. now THAT's BS.
    1. CZroe's Avatar
      CZroe -
      Quote Originally Posted by Mrteacup View Post
      Technically it's double jeopardy. They are looking at different terms if they are revisiting a settled agreement.
      That's not what Double Jeopardy means. If someone had been punished for the crime and served it completely, they can't be punished for that specific instance of the crime again. How does that apply to a retrial that could result in a reversed decision or support the previous one? Punishing twice was never on the table.