Apple, Motorola Mobility dispute ‘not a proper use of this court’

Apple Inc. and Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Motorola Mobility unit are more interested in using litigation as a business strategy than in resolving disputes over the use of patented technology, a federal judge in Florida said.

“The parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute; they instead are using this and similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end,” U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami said in an order dated yesterday. “That is not a proper use of this court.”

  • Mother Hydra

    I certainly think Apple’s competitors see this strategy as some sort of end game.


      they have no other choice, if every manufacturer had to pay Apple $40 for each phone. They would not be competitive.

      • Mother Hydra

        For proof of what you said, one needs only to look at the expense to Android handset manufacturers currently paying Microsoft. Samsung is the only one making any scratch from all that brou-ha-ha

  • There’s a certain hypocrisy here. If patents are worthwhile as means of keeping your competitor from copying your processes — which is their primary usage, after all — absolutely it’s worth using the court for a battle like this.

    Personally, I think the current patent system is absurd, but it makes up for a weak trademark system.

    The hypocrisy comes from this: The courts made these tools a mess. Blaming it on Apple and (yes) Google is absurd.

  • Tvaddic

    2 of the biggest players in mobile want everything to stay the same. Imagine that.

  • Kudos for not using the link bait “Apple, Google dispute…” for the title.


    Court system isn’t capable of figuring out technical details neither is a jury system. It really needs something else.

    Wright Brothers fought a patent in courts which basically cost them their business with basically no win. 20 year court fight, Patents expired and Europe had better planes.

    Problem is there is no way to sanction Corporations because they always plays the “Consumer benefit” card.

  • The Judge’s comments are odd. When something goes to litigation it is because two parties were unable to efficiently and expeditiously resolve a dispute. If two parties were able to do this then they would not need the court. To me this seems like why the court exists in this instance.