• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc.     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:War100973077, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)

Type: yago:WikicatUnitedStatesDistrictCourtCasesyago:WikicatUnitedStatesLawsuitsyago:WikicatSmartphonePatentWarsyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Act100030358yago:Case107308889yago:DueProcess101181475yago:Event100029378yago:GroupAction101080366yago:Happening107283608yago:Lawsuit101182654yago:MilitaryAction100952963yago:Proceeding101184814yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntityyago:War100973077 New Facet based on Instances of this Class

Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement. In April 2012, the contro