There is no doubt that Apple under the hand of Steve Jobs was a force to be reckoned with. It seemed they were almost untouchable in court and had the freedom to do what they wanted to in the market and in their business dealings. However, in the short weeks since the unfortunate passing of Steve Jobs, Apple has been handed down two very unusual judgments. The first one we told you about a couple of days ago where a Spanish court ruled against Apple in their attempt to label the Spanish corporation Nuevas Tecnologías y Energías Catalá as a product pirate.

This loss has now turned into a counter suit for loss of revenue and for damage to the company’s reputation as well as an Anti-Trust complaint against Apple. These two cases have not even started yet so we do not have any new information, but it is significant in the fact that the original indictment filed by Apple used the same argument that Apple has successfully used against Samsung in the EU and in Australia (the product does look like a stretched iPad).

Although this is localized to Spain the ruling does set precedence as now other courts will look to the decisions made in other countries when ruling on similar matters. It is also important to remember that the ban in Australia is not permanent just yet. Although there is a preliminary ban in place the final ruling will not happen for a bit yet. This loss could factor into it. It may also help Samsung in the EU with their appeals there.

Our next unusual loss for Apple comes in the form of a default judgment handed down by a German court which bans the delivery or sale of Apple mobile products in Germany. This judgment was put into effect due to the fact that Apple did not respond in time to the charge that they are infringing on two of Motorola’s patents. The reason Apple chose not to respond is not clear as the have plenty of legal staff to cover this kind of thing. Other sites have reported that Apple does not care about this because they are only the parent company (which the original suit was against) and their local subsidiary (Apple GmbH) is free to continue to sell Apple products as long as they like.   There are two flaws in this thought, the first is obvious; although Apple GmbH is the local subsidiary there are still run by the global parent. If they continue to sell Motorola can argue this and work to get the sales stopped.  The second is the wording of the judgment. It prohibits Apple from “delivering” mobile products into Germany. This means that once Apple GmbH and others run out, well they are out.

There is more to this though. Apple’s German website is nothing more than a redirection to Apple’s US site. Both names are owned by the parent company Apple, Inc. This means that Motorola can have that site taken down in Germany and prevent Apple from selling any mobile product through the web (regardless of where it ships from).

Now we have to remember that this is a default judgment and is by no means final. Apple still has the right to have the case heard and judged on its merits. There is a chance they could win this one yet, but it is odd that they did not answer the first response. We simply do not know why they have chosen not to answer, but it could have something to do with an upcoming hearing into Samsung’s use of FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) patents against Apple. Apple is claiming that the patents that Samsung are attempting to use against it fall under this guideline and that upholding those against Apple alone would be anti-competitive (hello pot). If the EU investigates this and finds against Samsung then Apple can use FRAND as a defense in this case. One of the patents that Motorola is using is essential to the operation of GSM, UTMS, 3G. If Apple attempted to use this now and the EU commission rules in favor of Samsung then that defense is out the window.

So we see some things are changing for Apple since the death of Steve Jobs, the question now is; “are the two related?” Most people would like to think they are not, but we tend to think of big companies as their public persona. When you think of Microsoft you think Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer (and his goofy photos). When you think of Apple you think of Steve Jobs. This is an important sub conscious issue that could lead many to look at Apple differently even in court.

We are going to keep an eye on both the EU investigation into the use of FRAND patents and the German case against Apple by Motorola. We will update you of any major changes in either.

Source for information on the Motorola judgment FossPatents

Discuss in our Forum