De cateva ore chip.de a anuntat faptul ca Motorola a obtinut in instanta blocarea vanzarilor iPhone in Germania. Decizia este luata de judecatoria Mannheim pe data de 4 Noiembrie si poate sa fie citita aici. Apple Inc. este acuzata de violarea a 2 patente Motorola.

Cele 2 patente disputate sunt:

1. EP (European Patent) 1010336 (B1) ( echivalentul european pentru patentul american U.S. Patent No. 6,359,898 ) - legat de “method for performing a countdown function during a mobile-originated transfer for a packet radio system”
2. EP (European Patent) 0847654 (B1) ( echivalentul european pentru patentul american U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119 ) -  legat de ”multiple pager status synchronization system and method”

Declaratia Motorola (raspuns la intreabarea lui F. Müller):

As media and mobility continue to converge, Motorola Mobility’s patented technologies are increasingly important for innovation within the wireless and communications industries, for which Motorola Mobility has developed an industry leading intellectual property portfolio. We will continue to assert ourselves in the protection of these assets, while also ensuring that our technologies are widely available to end-users. We hope that we are able to resolve this matter, so we can focus on creating great innovations that benefit the industry.

Declaratia Apple via Cnet:

This is a procedural issue and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It does not affect our ability to do business or sell products in Germany at this time.

Declaratia expertului in patente Florian Müller:

According to the document, this decision can be executed “preliminarily”, which means under German law that Motorola Mobility can enforce this injunction against Apple from now on even if Apple appeals the ruling (which I’m pretty sure it will). That means Apple may temporarily — until a second judgment is entered — be barred from selling any mobile devices in Germany. Apple wouldn’t be the first defendant in Germany to pursue a tactic called “Flucht in die Säumnis” (“resorting to a default judgment”). Many defendants play this game after they have failed (for their own fault) to meet a deadline for an answer to a complaint. In that case, the problem they face is that any arguments they’d have liked to present would no longer be admissible if presented only at the time of a hearing (on the grounds of being untimely). By simply letting the plaintiff win a default judgment, a defendant preserves his ability to present all of his arguments in the appeal. But this has cost implications (which are less than secondary in this case given what’s at stake) and comes with the risk of a default judgment that is preliminarily enforceable.