Skip to main content

Google, Apple Patent War Continues

The patent war between Google and Apple continues to rage on. It initially started in 2010 with a claim against Apple. Here we are, three years later, and yet another claim has been launched, this time from Motorola (owned by Google) complaining over user interface control through sensors, which Apple has also been using. This patent (Number 6,246,862) has, however, been invalidated by the International Trace Center (ITC), striking a large blow against Motorola and Google. The company will predictably be making use of the laws that govern lawsuit appeals in the Federal Courts.

With this claim being the latest in a line of over a thousand patent complaints submitted, both companies are losing cases left, right and center, hopefully resulting in a soon-to-come stalemate that will end this childish bickering. Apple and Google should perhaps stop spending so much time in the courtrooms pointing fingers at each other, and alternatively invest it into R&D as well as costumer satisfaction.

  • ddpruitt
    Apple and Google should perhaps stop spending so much time in the courtrooms pointing fingers at each other, and alternatively invest it into R&D as well as costumer satisfaction.

    This
    Reply
  • burmese_dude
    Go Google. Kick Apple's ass.
    Reply
  • vaughn2k
    I second.. Kick everything on Apple as well..
    Reply
  • anononon
    Take down Cr-apple google!
    Then get back to R&D already!
    Reply
  • g00fysmiley
    the only winners are the lawyers, the only losers the consumers
    Reply
  • fil1p
    When will all these patent wars end!?!?! The money they spend on lawsuits could be used more productively.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    10716257 said:
    Apple and Google should perhaps stop spending so much time in the courtrooms pointing fingers at each other, and alternatively invest it into R&D as well as costumer satisfaction.

    This
    I bet all those lawsuits make many costumers very satisfied with all their orders from well-dressed lawyer customers.
    Reply
  • Marid
    What a bizarre op-ed. Apple's court victories continue with Android partners losing case after case where they attempt litigation with standards essential patents. As they should. Meanwhile Microsoft continues to win licensing agreements with one of the last holdouts being Motorola. Owned by Google. The writer and majority of posters clearly haven't had their hard work stolen before. If you had, you wouldn't be so quick to jump on the Google bandwagon. And don't give me 'rounded corners' nonsense. If Pepsi sold Pepsi in a Coke shaped bottle, Coca-cola would crush them in court.
    Reply
  • -Jackson
    10717290 said:
    What a bizarre op-ed. Apple's court victories continue with Android partners losing case after case where they attempt litigation with standards essential patents. As they should. Meanwhile Microsoft continues to win licensing agreements with one of the last holdouts being Motorola. Owned by Google. The writer and majority of posters clearly haven't had their hard work stolen before. If you had, you wouldn't be so quick to jump on the Google bandwagon. And don't give me 'rounded corners' nonsense. If Pepsi sold Pepsi in a Coke shaped bottle, Coca-cola would crush them in court.
    Yeah but Pepsi and Coca-Cola are the same company now aren't they?

    Reply
  • davewolfgang
    10717290 said:
    What a bizarre op-ed. Apple's court victories continue with Android partners losing case after case where they attempt litigation with standards essential patents. As they should. Meanwhile Microsoft continues to win licensing agreements with one of the last holdouts being Motorola. Owned by Google. The writer and majority of posters clearly haven't had their hard work stolen before. If you had, you wouldn't be so quick to jump on the Google bandwagon. And don't give me 'rounded corners' nonsense. If Pepsi sold Pepsi in a Coke shaped bottle, Coca-cola would crush them in court.

    Really? Fanboi much?

    They only win with a paid off judge and fixed jury.
    Reply