Could Litigations be the End of Android? No. Dream On.
07-15-2011, 05:06 PM
#1
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Could Litigations be the End of Android? No. Dream On.
ITC just ruled that HTC is infringing on two of Apple's patents, this will be appealed but if it stands it could lead to some HTC devices being banned from sale in the US.
Don't forget about Apple's lawsuit with Samsung which IMO is a slam dunk in Apple's favor, Samsung's fuckin screwed on that one.
Also Microsoft has inked a licensing deal with HTC and a few other Android device makers whose names escape me at the moment but it's rumored that MS gets $5-$15 for every Android handset that HTC and these other companies sell for it's patents that are in Android devices. That alone could be more than what MS charges to use it's Windows Phone OS. It's rumored tate Samsung is also currently in talks with MS for a licensing deal or maybe they'll work out something including WP7. MS has similar deals with various Linux distros as well.
Also there's Oracle's lawsuit against Google itself for infringing on Java patents that it acquired when it bought Sun Microsystem and from what I understand that case has a little bit of merit.
Apple still has lawsuits against Motorola for similar claims that it claimed against HTC as well and MS has a lawsuit against Motorola as well (not sure of it's mertit).
Thos are just all the lawsuits I can think of off the top of my head
It seems that if you want a build Android devices it's not as free as you think and with MS licensing deal it could be more expensive than making a Windows Phone device.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/15/i...patents-appea/
Don't forget about Apple's lawsuit with Samsung which IMO is a slam dunk in Apple's favor, Samsung's fuckin screwed on that one.
Also Microsoft has inked a licensing deal with HTC and a few other Android device makers whose names escape me at the moment but it's rumored that MS gets $5-$15 for every Android handset that HTC and these other companies sell for it's patents that are in Android devices. That alone could be more than what MS charges to use it's Windows Phone OS. It's rumored tate Samsung is also currently in talks with MS for a licensing deal or maybe they'll work out something including WP7. MS has similar deals with various Linux distros as well.
Also there's Oracle's lawsuit against Google itself for infringing on Java patents that it acquired when it bought Sun Microsystem and from what I understand that case has a little bit of merit.
Apple still has lawsuits against Motorola for similar claims that it claimed against HTC as well and MS has a lawsuit against Motorola as well (not sure of it's mertit).
Thos are just all the lawsuits I can think of off the top of my head
It seems that if you want a build Android devices it's not as free as you think and with MS licensing deal it could be more expensive than making a Windows Phone device.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/15/i...patents-appea/
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; 07-15-2011 at 05:13 PM.
07-15-2011, 05:19 PM
#2
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Samsung is apparently going to license-build some webOS devices too.
The following users liked this post:
#1 STUNNA (07-15-2011)
07-15-2011, 10:45 PM
#5
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
I'm not talking about immediate future but there seems to be a lot of potentially valid legal opposition to using Android that over time could lead to a decreased interest in making android devices especially from small companies. If there were a better contender to come a long to challenge Apple (Windows Phone or WebOS) that started gaining traction (Windows Phone is expected to have ~20% marketshare by 2015) then this patent issue I think would make it an easy decision to choose Windows Phone or WebOS over Android.
Also add to it that Apple, MS and RIM just collectively spent $4.5 billion on Nortel's Patent portfolio there could be more lawsuits to come because of that.
MS must have a real valid case if big companies like HTC are signing these deals with them to avoid a lawsuit. If it's true that this MS licensing deal costs as much if not more than the cost of licensing Windows Phone from MS and Windows Phone started gaining traction then I don't know why they'd continue making Android devices.
Also add to it that Apple, MS and RIM just collectively spent $4.5 billion on Nortel's Patent portfolio there could be more lawsuits to come because of that.
MS must have a real valid case if big companies like HTC are signing these deals with them to avoid a lawsuit. If it's true that this MS licensing deal costs as much if not more than the cost of licensing Windows Phone from MS and Windows Phone started gaining traction then I don't know why they'd continue making Android devices.
07-15-2011, 10:48 PM
#6
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
07-15-2011, 10:50 PM
#7
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Trending Topics
08-03-2011, 03:23 PM
#9
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Google is Pissed!
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/...k-android.html
I have worked in the tech sector for over two decades. Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on. Here is what’s happening:
Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers. Android and other platforms are competing hard against each other, and that’s yielding cool new devices and amazing mobile apps for consumers.
But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.
They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Mobile; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it.
A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.
This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. Microsoft and Apple’s winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop.
We’re not naive; technology is a tough and ever-changing industry and we work very hard to stay focused on our own business and make better products. But in this instance we thought it was important to speak out and make it clear that we’re determined to preserve Android as a competitive choice for consumers, by stopping those who are trying to strangle it.
We’re looking intensely at a number of ways to do that. We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms, and that it’s looking into whether Microsoft and Apple acquired the Nortel patents for anti-competitive means. We’re also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats against Android by strengthening our own patent portfolio. Unless we act, consumers could face rising costs for Android devices — and fewer choices for their next phone.
Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers. Android and other platforms are competing hard against each other, and that’s yielding cool new devices and amazing mobile apps for consumers.
But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.
They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Mobile; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it.
A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.
This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. Microsoft and Apple’s winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop.
We’re not naive; technology is a tough and ever-changing industry and we work very hard to stay focused on our own business and make better products. But in this instance we thought it was important to speak out and make it clear that we’re determined to preserve Android as a competitive choice for consumers, by stopping those who are trying to strangle it.
We’re looking intensely at a number of ways to do that. We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms, and that it’s looking into whether Microsoft and Apple acquired the Nortel patents for anti-competitive means. We’re also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats against Android by strengthening our own patent portfolio. Unless we act, consumers could face rising costs for Android devices — and fewer choices for their next phone.
08-03-2011, 03:34 PM
#10
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
In other news Google is facing more legal opposition this time in relation to their WebM video format that's based off of On2's VP8 codec. Google bought On2 last year for this format. It supposed to be an open source royalty free format to replace H.264 as the main video format of the web.
However the MPEG-LA formed a group to look into possible patent infringements in the codec of VP8 and 12 companies have stepped forward and said that VP8 infringes on their patents. If true then WebM could lose it's royalty-free status and since WebM is built-in to android, companies that license Android can find themselves in yet another legal battle...
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011...-vp8-codec.ars
However the MPEG-LA formed a group to look into possible patent infringements in the codec of VP8 and 12 companies have stepped forward and said that VP8 infringes on their patents. If true then WebM could lose it's royalty-free status and since WebM is built-in to android, companies that license Android can find themselves in yet another legal battle...
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011...-vp8-codec.ars
08-04-2011, 01:39 PM
#11
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
LOL! In response to Google's Blog post claiming that Apple and MS where ganging up on them MS posted a screenshot of an email between Brad Smith (MS General Counsel) and Kent Walker (Google's General Counsel) in which Google declined MS's offer to join them in bidding for Norvell's patents.
u69Tv.jpg
http://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585
https://twitter.com/#!/fxshaw/status/98932077327691776
u69Tv.jpg
http://twitter.com/#!/BradSmi/status/98902130412355585
https://twitter.com/#!/fxshaw/status/98932077327691776
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; 08-04-2011 at 01:41 PM.
08-04-2011, 02:48 PM
#12
Matt
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 43
Posts: 2,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^and their response:
UPDATE August 4, 2011 - 12:25pm PT
It's not surprising that Microsoft would want to divert attention by pushing a false "gotcha!" while failing to address the substance of the issues we raised. If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsofts offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android and having us pay for the privilege must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it.
Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened, forcing Microsoft to sell the patents it bought and demanding that the winning group (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, EMC) give a license to the open-source community, changes the DoJ said were necessary to protect competition and innovation in the open source software community. This only reaffirms our point: Our competitors are waging a patent war on Android and working together to keep us from getting patents that would help balance the scales.
It's not surprising that Microsoft would want to divert attention by pushing a false "gotcha!" while failing to address the substance of the issues we raised. If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsofts offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android and having us pay for the privilege must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it.
Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened, forcing Microsoft to sell the patents it bought and demanding that the winning group (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, EMC) give a license to the open-source community, changes the DoJ said were necessary to protect competition and innovation in the open source software community. This only reaffirms our point: Our competitors are waging a patent war on Android and working together to keep us from getting patents that would help balance the scales.
08-04-2011, 03:23 PM
#13
Safety Car
All these patent articles are retarded. Leave that stuff to the experts. For a good read about software patents and why the system is broken read this article:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/site...transcript.pdf
Its a very good read and gives you a better understanding of whats going on with patent system right now. There's clearly a need for change and I think Google is trying to push for that change and more importantly, they have a chance to do that now. If they fail, then well life goes on. If anything these patents are hurting the consumers more than the companies as we have to pay to cover the fees such companies are paying to even sell us their products.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/site...transcript.pdf
Its a very good read and gives you a better understanding of whats going on with patent system right now. There's clearly a need for change and I think Google is trying to push for that change and more importantly, they have a chance to do that now. If they fail, then well life goes on. If anything these patents are hurting the consumers more than the companies as we have to pay to cover the fees such companies are paying to even sell us their products.
08-04-2011, 08:30 PM
#15
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
I don't understand Google's response. If Google bought the patents then android would be liable to attacks? I thought you buy the patents with MS and Apple and everyone then everyone has a license to them and they can't sue each other over them. So they're saying if they bought them then they'd get sued.
Anyways MS responded.
http://twitter.com/#!/fxshaw
Anyways MS responded.
Hello again David Drummond. This is going to take a few tweets, so here we go. Let’s look at what Google does not dispute in their reply.
We offered Google the opportunity to bid with us to buy the Novell patents; they said no.
Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else.
SO partnering with others & reducing patent liability across industry is not something they wanted to help do
We offered Google the opportunity to bid with us to buy the Novell patents; they said no.
Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else.
SO partnering with others & reducing patent liability across industry is not something they wanted to help do
08-04-2011, 09:44 PM
#16
Safety Car
I think what Drummond was trying to get at was, doing a joint purchase of the patents would've been a waste of money as they couldn't use it to defend themselves (countersue) from lawsuits filed from Microsoft or Apple for other patents. In other words, they would've been throwing their money away as they couldn't use it as a defense against Microsoft or Apple if they did a joint purchase. Either way, Microsoft's response still doesn't respond to those claims by Drummond and assumes Google would've used the patents to sue Microsoft and Apple. These patent stuff should just stay behind closed doors. The tech websites are blowing them out of proportion without actually understanding everything that's being laid out.
08-04-2011, 11:52 PM
#17
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
I think what Drummond was trying to get at was, doing a joint purchase of the patents would've been a waste of money as they couldn't use it to defend themselves (countersue) from lawsuits filed from Microsoft or Apple for other patents. In other words, they would've been throwing their money away as they couldn't use it as a defense against Microsoft or Apple if they did a joint purchase. Either way, Microsoft's response still doesn't respond to those claims by Drummond and assumes Google would've used the patents to sue Microsoft and Apple. These patent stuff should just stay behind closed doors. The tech websites are blowing them out of proportion without actually understanding everything that's being laid out.
08-05-2011, 12:00 AM
#18
Safety Car
The idea is that Microsoft and Apple will sue Google from the plenty other patents that they have not the Nortel patents. Google's plan in buying the Nortel patents was to use it as a defense, if such scenario were to occur. Having a joint purchase nullifies that defense plan for them since all three would have the patents if it happened that way. Hence, the reason that buying the patents with the other companies would've been a waste of money for Google since they wouldn't be able to use it on their defense.
08-07-2011, 04:08 PM
#19
Safety Car
Here is Mark Cuban's take on the Patent Laws and the need for their reform which I think he makes great arguments for:
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/07/m...on-patent-law/
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/06/i...e-patent-laws/
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/07/m...on-patent-law/
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/06/i...e-patent-laws/
08-10-2011, 11:38 AM
#20
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Apple just got an preliminary injunction passed blocking the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 from being sold in Europe (except for Netherland).
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/09/g...-10-1-sale-in/
Apple's also added the Xoom to it's list of grievances in the Motorola lawsuit. No word yet if they'll attempt to block it's sale. Not like anyone's buying one anyways.....
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/10/a...motorola-over/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/09/g...-10-1-sale-in/
Apple's also added the Xoom to it's list of grievances in the Motorola lawsuit. No word yet if they'll attempt to block it's sale. Not like anyone's buying one anyways.....
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/10/a...motorola-over/
08-15-2011, 01:57 PM
#22
Safety Car
If this is true then Apple should be paying Samsung for damages and lost product sales. Although, from what I hear, retailers are still selling the Tab 10.1 regardless of what the courts ruled.
Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/23804...t_samsung.html
Apple and its lawyers have, perhaps inadvertently, misled the judge of a Dόsseldorf court by filing flawed evidence of the similarity between the iPad 2 and Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets based on an inaccurate picture, an investigation by Webwereld.nl, a Dutch IDG publication, has found.
But the picture Apple submitted of the Tab is inaccurate and does not match with the real Galaxy Tab 10.1, Webwereld discovered. Further investigations have verified this assessment. The Galaxy Tab due on the European market is taller and more oblong than the iPad 2. However, the shape of what Apple's claims to be a Tab 10.1 resembles the iPad very closely.
The picture of the alleged Galaxy Tab provided by Apple is cropped and its aspect ratio is distorted. According to Samsung, the Tab measures 256.7 x 175.3 millimeters, which translates to an aspect ratio of 1.46. The Tab pictured in the complaint however has an aspect ratio of 1.36. The bottom is about 8 percent wider than the actual one.
As a result, the aspect ratio of the purported Tab is actually closer to the aspect ratio of the iPad 2, which is 1.30. In short: the shape of the alleged Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Apple's complaint matches the iPad 2 more closely than it matches the actual Tab.
But the picture Apple submitted of the Tab is inaccurate and does not match with the real Galaxy Tab 10.1, Webwereld discovered. Further investigations have verified this assessment. The Galaxy Tab due on the European market is taller and more oblong than the iPad 2. However, the shape of what Apple's claims to be a Tab 10.1 resembles the iPad very closely.
The picture of the alleged Galaxy Tab provided by Apple is cropped and its aspect ratio is distorted. According to Samsung, the Tab measures 256.7 x 175.3 millimeters, which translates to an aspect ratio of 1.46. The Tab pictured in the complaint however has an aspect ratio of 1.36. The bottom is about 8 percent wider than the actual one.
As a result, the aspect ratio of the purported Tab is actually closer to the aspect ratio of the iPad 2, which is 1.30. In short: the shape of the alleged Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Apple's complaint matches the iPad 2 more closely than it matches the actual Tab.
Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/23804...t_samsung.html
08-15-2011, 09:06 PM
#23
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Last week I read about an Android licensing issue that I wasn't previously aware of. It's a pretty serious one, and it's not that hard to understand. The short version is that
rampant non-compliance with the source code disclosure requirement of the GPLv2 (the license under which Linux is published) -- especially but not only in connection with Honeycomb -- has technically resulted in a loss of most vendors' right to distribute Linux;
this loss of the distribution license is irremediable except through a new license from each and every contributor to the Linux kernel, without which Android can't run; and
as a result, there are thousands of people out there who could legally shake down Android device makers, threatening to obtain Apple-style injunctions unless their demands for a new license grant are met.
rampant non-compliance with the source code disclosure requirement of the GPLv2 (the license under which Linux is published) -- especially but not only in connection with Honeycomb -- has technically resulted in a loss of most vendors' right to distribute Linux;
this loss of the distribution license is irremediable except through a new license from each and every contributor to the Linux kernel, without which Android can't run; and
as a result, there are thousands of people out there who could legally shake down Android device makers, threatening to obtain Apple-style injunctions unless their demands for a new license grant are met.
If this is true than Android is FUCKED beyond belief! Good God Man! Get your shit together Google! You're doing this to yourself!
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...eir-linux.html
http://www.neowin.net/news/majority-...ibution-rights
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; 08-15-2011 at 09:08 PM.
08-15-2011, 10:11 PM
#24
Safety Car
If this is true than Android is FUCKED beyond belief! Good God Man! Get your shit together Google! You're doing this to yourself!
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...eir-linux.html
http://www.neowin.net/news/majority-...ibution-rights
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/
Please read this article to get a better understanding of GPL and Android not those links you posted above:http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...10815131443415
All these people especially the author of the article you link are Anti-FOSS and has always been saying for years how Android was gonna die. This is just another one of his articles. Take it with a big grain of salt just like his other claims that never came to fruition. Long story short, it won't affect Android.
08-17-2011, 01:44 AM
#25
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Mi malo, didn't know the guy was trollin. It seemed a little ridiculous.
08-25-2011, 10:52 PM
#26
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
The Samsung Galaxy S, S II and S Ace got banned from sale in the Netherlands today. A judge ruled that the Android 2.3 gallery app violated Apple's patents and Samsung says that they will remove that app in order to continue sales in that region. A judge also ruled that the Tab 10.1 didn't violate any patents.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/n...-violate-appl/
Since this gallery app is an Android app it should be in all Android phones so this could be trouble for other phones in the future.
Apple has also blocked sales of the Tab 10.1 in Australia too
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._tab_10_1.html
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/n...-violate-appl/
Since this gallery app is an Android app it should be in all Android phones so this could be trouble for other phones in the future.
Apple has also blocked sales of the Tab 10.1 in Australia too
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._tab_10_1.html
08-25-2011, 11:38 PM
#27
Safety Car
Yeah the lawsuit was pretty fail for Apple considering the Gallery app is easily replaceable with an update. Also, now that their patents have been invalidated by the courts, Apple can't use it against other manufacturers in the future so they lost their most important patents which is in regards to their rectangular shape which was BS in the first place.
Samsung already stated that they're actually not halting sales and are going to push an update to "fix" the Gallery. Even the patent that they lost against was trivial since it talks about swiping to navigate between photos and the bounce effect. Again, future Android devices are not affected as it didn't touch the Tab 10.1 for whatever reasons. So going on forward from Honeycomb, their "win" is useless. Even if they were affected, its an easy fix for Google and the manufacturers.
Better article here to explain why the lawsuit was a fail all around:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Ap...gainst_Samsung
If anything, this is good news for Android devices as Samsung will have to update them.
Maybe even get Ice Cream Sandwich as a gift for the devices not expecting them.
Samsung already stated that they're actually not halting sales and are going to push an update to "fix" the Gallery. Even the patent that they lost against was trivial since it talks about swiping to navigate between photos and the bounce effect. Again, future Android devices are not affected as it didn't touch the Tab 10.1 for whatever reasons. So going on forward from Honeycomb, their "win" is useless. Even if they were affected, its an easy fix for Google and the manufacturers.
Better article here to explain why the lawsuit was a fail all around:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Ap...gainst_Samsung
The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The Kinght Ridder is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe (or whatever - I have a life, I'm not reading the entire damn thing). The Gallery application on Samsung's Android 2.x devices infringes on this patent, and as such, the injunction against the Galaxy S, SII and Ace was granted. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was exempt, since it runs Android 3.0, which does not infringe on the patent, the judge said.
Samsung has already stated this ruling is pretty much meaningless, since the company is going to replace the Gallery application on all Galaxy smartphones right away. The injunction won't go into effect until mid-October, so they've got more than enough time to change the software. The injunction has been granted due to the method of scrolling in the Gallery. If that's replaced, there is no more reason to uphold the injunction," states Bas Berghuis van Woortman, Samsung's lawyer. In fact, the judge states in his court order that he has taken the ease with which Samsung can circumvent this patent into account in his ruling.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The Kinght Ridder is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe (or whatever - I have a life, I'm not reading the entire damn thing). The Gallery application on Samsung's Android 2.x devices infringes on this patent, and as such, the injunction against the Galaxy S, SII and Ace was granted. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was exempt, since it runs Android 3.0, which does not infringe on the patent, the judge said.
Samsung has already stated this ruling is pretty much meaningless, since the company is going to replace the Gallery application on all Galaxy smartphones right away. The injunction won't go into effect until mid-October, so they've got more than enough time to change the software. The injunction has been granted due to the method of scrolling in the Gallery. If that's replaced, there is no more reason to uphold the injunction," states Bas Berghuis van Woortman, Samsung's lawyer. In fact, the judge states in his court order that he has taken the ease with which Samsung can circumvent this patent into account in his ruling.
If anything, this is good news for Android devices as Samsung will have to update them.
Maybe even get Ice Cream Sandwich as a gift for the devices not expecting them.
Last edited by CGFebTSX04; 08-25-2011 at 11:43 PM.
09-06-2011, 04:31 AM
#28
it comes down to this
Apple either sucks a lot of dick in the right places or they bribe the crap out of them....
This is like Chevy suing Ford for using round wheels with 5 lugs on their cars.........or having door handles that you have to lift up on to open the car.
Apple makes the practices of MS look heavenly.........
Samsung has been blocked from Selling the 7.7 tablet in Germany according to GSM Arena....
Apple either sucks a lot of dick in the right places or they bribe the crap out of them....
This is like Chevy suing Ford for using round wheels with 5 lugs on their cars.........or having door handles that you have to lift up on to open the car.
Apple makes the practices of MS look heavenly.........
Samsung has been blocked from Selling the 7.7 tablet in Germany according to GSM Arena....
Last edited by YeuEmMaiMai; 09-06-2011 at 04:34 AM.
10-16-2011, 08:47 PM
#29
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Australia has also blocked the sale of the tab 10.1
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79C79C20111014
MS also signed a patent deal with Samsung also as part of the deal Samsung is going to have a closer partnership with MS when it comes to Windows Phone. Not on the level as Nokia but it should be closer than others.
MS also signed an Android patent licensing deal with some no name company Quanta.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_984842.html
A U.S. judge said that Samsung Electronic's Galaxy tablets infringe Apple Inc's iPad patents, but added that Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants.
...
Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.
"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.
"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.
...
Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.
"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.
"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.
MS also signed a patent deal with Samsung also as part of the deal Samsung is going to have a closer partnership with MS when it comes to Windows Phone. Not on the level as Nokia but it should be closer than others.
Microsoft is announcing today the biggest Android-related patent deal to date, signing a broad cross-licensing agreement with Samsung.
With the deal, Microsoft will get royalty revenue on every Android smartphone and tablet that Samsung sells. Redmond already has a deal with another major handset maker -- HTC -- that sells both Android and Windows Phone devices.
"Together with the license agreement signed last year with HTC, today's agreement with Samsung means that the top two Android handset manufacturers in the United States have now acquired licenses to Microsoft's patent portfolio," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith and top IP lawyer Horacio Gutierrez said in a blog post. "These two companies together accounted for more than half of all Android phones sold in the U.S. over the past year."
With the deal, Microsoft will get royalty revenue on every Android smartphone and tablet that Samsung sells. Redmond already has a deal with another major handset maker -- HTC -- that sells both Android and Windows Phone devices.
"Together with the license agreement signed last year with HTC, today's agreement with Samsung means that the top two Android handset manufacturers in the United States have now acquired licenses to Microsoft's patent portfolio," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith and top IP lawyer Horacio Gutierrez said in a blog post. "These two companies together accounted for more than half of all Android phones sold in the U.S. over the past year."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_984842.html
10-17-2011, 12:14 AM
#30
Safety Car
I would like that judge cover the logos of multiple TVs and ask anyone to identify which brand is which. Apple's case is for the rectangle design of a tablet, something that's been used in previous tablets before the iPad. Some snippets from an article regarding the judgment in Australia (which is nearly the same thing that happened in the Netherlands btw). No one wins with these litigations. If anything, this was free publicity for Samsung which clearly shows there's an increased demand after the court ruling. Waste of taxpayer dollars and could be used to hire workers and/or R&D. Oh well.
Australians are making a mockery of a Federal Court injunction banning the sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia by ordering them from online stores.
But online sellers on eBay, and web stores such as MobiCity.com.au, Expansys, Techrific and dMavo, are bypassing Samsung Australia and obtaining stock from other countries, such as Hong Kong.
Maverick online seller Ruslan Kogan was also selling Galaxy Tab 10.1 units but withdrew them from the market after receiving legal threats from Apple. However, it appears the other sellers, many of which are hosted overseas, do not care about Apple's threats.
"If this is an outcome of the injunction, the harm is not to Samsung, which makes its sales all the same, but to the Australian retailers who do not have the opportunity to compete," said senior patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, from Watermark in Melbourne.
An unidentified director of dmavo.com.au told ZDNet Australia that he was importing hundreds of Galaxy Tab 10.1 units to cater to a large influx of inquiries following the court injunction. The director told the website that he believed Apple had no basis for legal threats against the business.
But online sellers on eBay, and web stores such as MobiCity.com.au, Expansys, Techrific and dMavo, are bypassing Samsung Australia and obtaining stock from other countries, such as Hong Kong.
Maverick online seller Ruslan Kogan was also selling Galaxy Tab 10.1 units but withdrew them from the market after receiving legal threats from Apple. However, it appears the other sellers, many of which are hosted overseas, do not care about Apple's threats.
"If this is an outcome of the injunction, the harm is not to Samsung, which makes its sales all the same, but to the Australian retailers who do not have the opportunity to compete," said senior patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, from Watermark in Melbourne.
An unidentified director of dmavo.com.au told ZDNet Australia that he was importing hundreds of Galaxy Tab 10.1 units to cater to a large influx of inquiries following the court injunction. The director told the website that he believed Apple had no basis for legal threats against the business.
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...?asid=2ec5c031
10-24-2011, 11:25 AM
#31
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Today Microsoft announced its tenth license agreement providing coverage under our patent portfolio for Android mobile phones and tablets. Today's agreement is with Compal, one of the world’s largest Original Design Manufacturers, or ODM. Compal is based in Taiwan, where it produces smartphones and tablet computers for third parties and has revenue of roughly $28 billion per year.
Today’s announcement marks Microsoft's ninth Android agreement in the last four months. More important, today’s announcement means that companies accounting for over half of all Android devices have now entered into patent license agreements with Microsoft.
You can see this licensing progress in the chart above, showing recent lawsuits and licenses. While lawsuits may dominate many of the headlines, these are being overtaken by the number of license agreements being signed. At this point, the fast pace of licensing is reshaping the legal landscape for smartphone patents.
At Microsoft we're building on our extensive experience with patent licensing. Over the past decade we’ve spent roughly $4.5 billion to license in patents from other companies. These have given us the opportunity to build on the innovations of others in a responsible manner that respects their IP rights. Equally important, we've stood by our customers and partners with countless agreements that contain the strongest patent indemnification provisions in our industry. These ensure that if our software infringes someone else's patents, we'll address the problem rather than leave it to others. And as reported in this morning's Seattle Times, we've now entered into 1,133 agreements over the last decade to license our patents to other companies that share our desire to respect IP rights.
Today’s announcement marks Microsoft's ninth Android agreement in the last four months. More important, today’s announcement means that companies accounting for over half of all Android devices have now entered into patent license agreements with Microsoft.
You can see this licensing progress in the chart above, showing recent lawsuits and licenses. While lawsuits may dominate many of the headlines, these are being overtaken by the number of license agreements being signed. At this point, the fast pace of licensing is reshaping the legal landscape for smartphone patents.
At Microsoft we're building on our extensive experience with patent licensing. Over the past decade we’ve spent roughly $4.5 billion to license in patents from other companies. These have given us the opportunity to build on the innovations of others in a responsible manner that respects their IP rights. Equally important, we've stood by our customers and partners with countless agreements that contain the strongest patent indemnification provisions in our industry. These ensure that if our software infringes someone else's patents, we'll address the problem rather than leave it to others. And as reported in this morning's Seattle Times, we've now entered into 1,133 agreements over the last decade to license our patents to other companies that share our desire to respect IP rights.
12-20-2011, 09:58 AM
#32
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
The United States International Trade Commission just ruled in favor of Apple in its case against HTC and banned the importation and sale of HTC Android devices including the Sprint Evo 4G, Verizon Droid Incredible, AT&T Aria, and T-Mobile G2. After a lengthy review, the Commission found that HTC devices infringe two claims of patent #5,946,647 ultimately implicating the heart of Android itself and not HTC's specific implementation. The patent issued in 1999 and, in general terms, covers a device that scans computer text for data, like a phone number, and turns that number into a link that the user can then select to perform an act, like calling the number. The requirements and language of the patent claims are obviously more complicated, but that's a decent overview of what's covered. The ITC decision now goes to the desk of the president, who has 60 days to issue a rarely-used veto; the ban itself will go into effect on April 19, 2012 to provide HTC with a transition period, and HTC will be allowed to import refurbished products for warranty replacement purposes until December 19, 2013.
It's important to note that the ITC issued an exclusion order and not a cease and desist; HTC's current products already on US shelves will be unaffected. However, exclusion orders are generally broadly worded and aren't limited to any specific products so we would expect Apple to use this ruling to go after all HTC phones running Android, from Android version 1.5 all the way up to and including version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich).
It's a significant victory for Apple, especially since it can presumably now attack every other Android manufacturer with the same patent and its first favorable substantive ruling on the merits, but the ban may not ultimately have any real effect on consumers if HTC and Google can develop a patch that works around Apple's two specific claims. And indeed, that's what HTC is promising to do here's the official statement we just received:
We are gratified that the commission affirmed the judge's determination on the 721 and 983 patents, and reversed its decision on the 263 patent and partially on the 647 patent. While disappointed that a finding of violation was still found on two claims of the 647 patent, we are well prepared for this decision, and our designers have created alternate solutions for the 647 patent.
Update: HTC just revised its statement on the case, saying that Apple's patent covers only a "small UI experience" and saying it will be completely removed from HTC phones "soon." We'll see how quickly that happens; any changes would have to first be deemed compatible with Android by Google and then approved and pushed to customers by HTC's carrier partners.
We are gratified that the Commission affirmed the judge's initial determination on the 721 and 983 patents, and reversed its decision on the 263 patent and partially on the 647 patent. We are very pleased with the determination and we respect it. However, the 647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.
For its part, Apple is just repeating its previous statements on the case:
We think competition is healthy but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.
We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything.
It's important to note that the ITC issued an exclusion order and not a cease and desist; HTC's current products already on US shelves will be unaffected. However, exclusion orders are generally broadly worded and aren't limited to any specific products so we would expect Apple to use this ruling to go after all HTC phones running Android, from Android version 1.5 all the way up to and including version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich).
It's a significant victory for Apple, especially since it can presumably now attack every other Android manufacturer with the same patent and its first favorable substantive ruling on the merits, but the ban may not ultimately have any real effect on consumers if HTC and Google can develop a patch that works around Apple's two specific claims. And indeed, that's what HTC is promising to do here's the official statement we just received:
We are gratified that the commission affirmed the judge's determination on the 721 and 983 patents, and reversed its decision on the 263 patent and partially on the 647 patent. While disappointed that a finding of violation was still found on two claims of the 647 patent, we are well prepared for this decision, and our designers have created alternate solutions for the 647 patent.
Update: HTC just revised its statement on the case, saying that Apple's patent covers only a "small UI experience" and saying it will be completely removed from HTC phones "soon." We'll see how quickly that happens; any changes would have to first be deemed compatible with Android by Google and then approved and pushed to customers by HTC's carrier partners.
We are gratified that the Commission affirmed the judge's initial determination on the 721 and 983 patents, and reversed its decision on the 263 patent and partially on the 647 patent. We are very pleased with the determination and we respect it. However, the 647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.
For its part, Apple is just repeating its previous statements on the case:
We think competition is healthy but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.
We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything.
12-20-2011, 10:49 AM
#33
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,306
Received 2,811 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
I dunno I don't really use that feature in iOS that much anyways...
12-20-2011, 10:57 AM
#34
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
I do, calling numbers in emails, tracking shipments, looking up address on google maps. I know most phone OS's have this feature, I just don't know if they've licensed it from Apple or not. Google apparently didn't.
There was an article recently that showed that apple has licensed patents in the past.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/3/26...ffered-samsung
There was an article recently that showed that apple has licensed patents in the past.
Until now, it's been assumed that Apple's playing absolute hardball in its various patent lawsuits around the world — that the company has no interest in licensing its patents, especially patents that cover fundamental parts of iOS. Turns out that that's not entirely true: Apple's licensed at least one iOS software patent related to scrolling functionality to Nokia and IBM, and offered a license to Samsung during failed settlement negotiations in November 2010.
The patent in question is #7,469,381, which covers the distinctive "scrollback" behavior of iOS that displays a background texture when you scroll beyond the edge of a document of webpage. Apple asserted this patent against Samsung as part of its failed attempt to get an injunction against Galaxy devices, and the court order denying the injunction includes general discussion of how past licensing behavior affects the decision of whether or not to grant an injunction. The discussion is nestled among two redacted statements shown to The Verge that confirm the '381 patent was licensed to IBM and Nokia, and that Apple offered a license to Samsung in November of 2010 as part of settlement negotiations.
You might remember that Apple confirmed it cross-licensed some patents to Nokia when the two-year conflict between the two was settled this past summer, so we'd assume '381 was among them. What's interesting is that at the time Apple said it had retained "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique," but it's hard to think of features in iOS more distinctive than its scrollback behavior. (Stock Android and Motorola's skin use a different pulsing highlight behavior to indicate that you've reached the end of a list.) What's more, Apple's sued Samsung, Nokia, and HTC over '381, which would usually indicate that Cupertino thinks it’s a strong patent, and the court agreed that Apple was likely to prove Samsung was infringing with its Galaxy devices. Offering up a distinctive software feature covered by a strong patent indicates a level of willingness to negotiate that we simply haven't heard from Apple in the past — it's a far cry from Steve Jobs telling his biographer that he was willing to go "thermonuclear war" on Google and Android OEMs for infringing Apple's patents.
What we don't know is how or why those November 2010 settlement negotiations fell apart: Apple could have been asking for exorbitant rates on a patent license, Samsung could have refused to pay because it thought the patents were invalid, or Jobs could have simply called the whole thing off. We also don't know if the two parties are still holding settlement negotiations or if things were put on hold as various courts around the world reached injunction rulings, and we don't know how Apple's inability to get injunctions to stick outside of Germany and the Netherlands — and Samsung's ability to quickly work around those injunctions — will affect another round of settlement talks. We'll see what happens next.
The patent in question is #7,469,381, which covers the distinctive "scrollback" behavior of iOS that displays a background texture when you scroll beyond the edge of a document of webpage. Apple asserted this patent against Samsung as part of its failed attempt to get an injunction against Galaxy devices, and the court order denying the injunction includes general discussion of how past licensing behavior affects the decision of whether or not to grant an injunction. The discussion is nestled among two redacted statements shown to The Verge that confirm the '381 patent was licensed to IBM and Nokia, and that Apple offered a license to Samsung in November of 2010 as part of settlement negotiations.
You might remember that Apple confirmed it cross-licensed some patents to Nokia when the two-year conflict between the two was settled this past summer, so we'd assume '381 was among them. What's interesting is that at the time Apple said it had retained "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique," but it's hard to think of features in iOS more distinctive than its scrollback behavior. (Stock Android and Motorola's skin use a different pulsing highlight behavior to indicate that you've reached the end of a list.) What's more, Apple's sued Samsung, Nokia, and HTC over '381, which would usually indicate that Cupertino thinks it’s a strong patent, and the court agreed that Apple was likely to prove Samsung was infringing with its Galaxy devices. Offering up a distinctive software feature covered by a strong patent indicates a level of willingness to negotiate that we simply haven't heard from Apple in the past — it's a far cry from Steve Jobs telling his biographer that he was willing to go "thermonuclear war" on Google and Android OEMs for infringing Apple's patents.
What we don't know is how or why those November 2010 settlement negotiations fell apart: Apple could have been asking for exorbitant rates on a patent license, Samsung could have refused to pay because it thought the patents were invalid, or Jobs could have simply called the whole thing off. We also don't know if the two parties are still holding settlement negotiations or if things were put on hold as various courts around the world reached injunction rulings, and we don't know how Apple's inability to get injunctions to stick outside of Germany and the Netherlands — and Samsung's ability to quickly work around those injunctions — will affect another round of settlement talks. We'll see what happens next.
12-20-2011, 12:26 PM
#35
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,306
Received 2,811 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
Hmmm I guess I'm not popular enough to use it.
Also the fact that it guesses what numbers are supposed to be a phone number etc etc.
Also the fact that it guesses what numbers are supposed to be a phone number etc etc.
12-20-2011, 04:39 PM
#36
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
It continues
Motorola Android products infringe Microsoft patent, says International Trade Commission
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/20/2...ft-patent-says
Motorola Android products infringe Microsoft patent, says International Trade Commission
The Unites States International Trade Commission held today that Motorola's Android products infringe four claims of a Microsoft patent — the ruling is an "initial final determination" by an administrative law judge, which can still be reviewed by the full Commission. The news comes on the heels of yesterday's ITC ruing imposing a ban on all HTC Android devices effective April 2012, and after months of Microsoft negotiating patent licenses with every other major Android OEMs.
Here's the statement Microsoft just sent us:
We are pleased with the ITC's initial determination finding Motorola violated four claims of a Microsoft patent. As Samsung, HTC, Acer and other companies have recognized, respecting others' intellectual property through licensing is the right path forward.
We've reached out to Motorola; we'll let you know when we hear back.
Here's the statement Microsoft just sent us:
We are pleased with the ITC's initial determination finding Motorola violated four claims of a Microsoft patent. As Samsung, HTC, Acer and other companies have recognized, respecting others' intellectual property through licensing is the right path forward.
We've reached out to Motorola; we'll let you know when we hear back.
01-13-2012, 01:51 PM
#37
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Microsoft has announced that it has signed a new patent licensing agreement with LG Electronics, covering LG smartphones, tablets, and any other devices that run either Android or Google's Chrome OS. It's another in a series of deals that Redmond has signed with Android OEMs, including HTC, Samsung, and eight others, offering them protection from intellectual property litigation from Microsoft over their use of Google's operating systems. According to Microsoft, more than 70 percent of the Android phones sold in the United States are now covered by such agreements which means every one of those devices is generating revenue for the company as well.
It's part of a larger strategy Microsoft has been pursuing in the mobile space, offering up its own Windows Phone OS to OEMs for a per-unit price, while simultaneously driving up the cost of using Android. With Google's mobile OS having proved so successful for companies like Samsung, it's not clear if the patent saber-rattling and increased costs will be enough to encourage Android hardware partners to leave the platform, but Microsoft certainly isn't timid about using all of the tools in its arsenal in the meantime.
It's part of a larger strategy Microsoft has been pursuing in the mobile space, offering up its own Windows Phone OS to OEMs for a per-unit price, while simultaneously driving up the cost of using Android. With Google's mobile OS having proved so successful for companies like Samsung, it's not clear if the patent saber-rattling and increased costs will be enough to encourage Android hardware partners to leave the platform, but Microsoft certainly isn't timid about using all of the tools in its arsenal in the meantime.
The only one that's not going to sign is Motorola (and maybe B&N) and they're currently losing their lawsuit with MS....
05-07-2012, 03:08 PM
#38
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
<div class="article-body">
<p>The jury in the <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/22/2967626/oracle-vs-google-trial-java-android">Oracle vs. Google trial</a> found Google liable of infringing Oracle's Java-related copyrights today, although it remained deadlocked on the critical issue of whether Google made fair use of the Java APIs. That issue has been unresolved since Friday, when the jury told Judge William Alsup that it <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/4/2998839/google-vs-oracle-jury-partial-verdict">couldn't reach a unanimous decision</a> on one the fair use issue. The judge then instructed the jurors to think things through over the weekend, but to no avail the jury said today that an "impasse has been reached" on the issue of fair use, but unanimously agreed that that Google did indeed infringe Oracle's copyrights as part of its partial verdict. Here's a full breakdown of the questions presented to the jury and the answers they returned:</p>
<center> <img alt="Screen_shot_2012-05-06_at_3" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102629/Screen_Shot_2012-05-06_at_3.13.03_PM.png">
</center>
<center><i>Yes to 1A, and a major "undecided" for 1B.</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>The jury found that Google had infringed upon Oracle's copyrights by <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102629/Screen_Shot_2012-05-06_at_3.13.03_PM.png">its use of the structure, sequence, and organization</a> (SSO) of the 37 Java APIs used in Android. Whether Google's use was covered under fair use and therefore permissible was the question they could not agree upon. That's the single most important infringement accusation in the case, and the judge will have to find a way to deal with the jury's inability to decide the fair use question. Judge Alsup also has to decide if the SSO of the Java API is actually copyrightable as a matter of law he instructed the jury to proceed as though it is, but that remains an open question of significant importance. If Judge Alsup decides the SSO is not copyrightable, these questions won't matter in the first place.</p>
<center> <img alt="Questoin_2" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102641/Questoin_2.png">
</center> <center><i>No to 2A, and an N/A for 2B.</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>The issue of SSO is just one part of the story, however. The jury was asked to address four different questions in total, including whether Google had <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102641/Questoin_2.png">unfairly taken from the documentation</a> associated with the 37 Java APIs. They found that Google had not infringed Oracle documentation copyrights.</p>
<center> <img alt="Question_3" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102649/Question_3.png">
</center>
<center><i>Yes to 3A, No to 3B, and No to 3C</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>The <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102649/Question_3.png">literal copying of code and comments in some files</a> best exemplified by the nine lines of rangeCheck code found in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java was a charge that Google had already conceded. The question for the jury was whether the copying was in fact <i>de minimis</i>: too small to constitute any actionable infringement. Of the three subsets that the jury was asked to deliberate on, they found that Google had infringed with only one of the three: the rangeCheck code itself.</p>
<center> <img alt="Question_4" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102661/Question_4.png">
</center>
<center><i>Yes to 4A and No to 4B</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>A large portion of the testimony the past two weeks had been devoted to whether <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102661/Question_4.png">Sun had provided sufficient indications</a> in public or private for Google to reasonably assume that its adoption of the SSO was acceptable. This was hotly contested; things were so turned around that Google called former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz to the witness stand last week as the keystone to this portion of its defense. While the jury found that Sun's actions could have led Google to believe it didn't need a license, it decided that Google knew better back in Android's early days and didn't actually rely on Sun's representations. Several internal emails from Tim Lindholm, Andy Rubin, and Eric Schmidt talking about the need to license Java no doubt played a large part in the latter decision. However, this particular question was only provided to the jury to help guide the court's decision on the issue. Judge Alsup will ultimately make that call.</p>
<p>Google immediately moved for a mistrial given the results, and will be preparing a brief making its argument. On the issue of damages, Oracle counsel David Boies stated that Oracle should be owed a portion of Android profits given the rangeCheck infringement, a pivot from earlier statements that it was expecting just statutory damages for this portion of its accusations. Judge Alsup disregarded this almost immediately, stating that there should be just one line of statutory damages going to the jury, which would result in a much smaller number than Oracle had hoped to achieve with its legal action.</p>
<p>Without missing a beat, the trial has quickly shifted to the patent portion of the proceedings, but the mistrial motion isn't the only unresolved issue from the copyright phase. While the jury was instructed to proceed as if the SSO of the Java APIs were copyrightable, that question is still up for debate. A ruling from Judge Alsup that they are not would render the jury's verdict on the SSO infringement entirely irrelevant. Both Oracle's and Google's legal teams are preparing briefs on the question for submission to Judge Alsup by May 10th. Both sides will be submitting responses to the others' briefs on May 14th, with the judge making his decision at some point thereafter.</p>
<p><i>Matt Macari and Nilay Patel contributed to this report.</i></p>
<div class="article-meta clearfix">
<ul class="simplelist sourcelist clearfix">
<li class="tags clearfix">
<strong>Related Items</strong>
<span><a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/google">google</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/jury">jury</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/trial">trial</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/android">android</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/oracle">oracle</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/copyright">copyright</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/verdict">verdict</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/java">java</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/infringement">infringement</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/deadlocked">deadlocked</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/judge-william-alsup">judge william alsup</a></span>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<p>The jury in the <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/22/2967626/oracle-vs-google-trial-java-android">Oracle vs. Google trial</a> found Google liable of infringing Oracle's Java-related copyrights today, although it remained deadlocked on the critical issue of whether Google made fair use of the Java APIs. That issue has been unresolved since Friday, when the jury told Judge William Alsup that it <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/4/2998839/google-vs-oracle-jury-partial-verdict">couldn't reach a unanimous decision</a> on one the fair use issue. The judge then instructed the jurors to think things through over the weekend, but to no avail the jury said today that an "impasse has been reached" on the issue of fair use, but unanimously agreed that that Google did indeed infringe Oracle's copyrights as part of its partial verdict. Here's a full breakdown of the questions presented to the jury and the answers they returned:</p>
<center> <img alt="Screen_shot_2012-05-06_at_3" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102629/Screen_Shot_2012-05-06_at_3.13.03_PM.png">
</center>
<center><i>Yes to 1A, and a major "undecided" for 1B.</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>The jury found that Google had infringed upon Oracle's copyrights by <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102629/Screen_Shot_2012-05-06_at_3.13.03_PM.png">its use of the structure, sequence, and organization</a> (SSO) of the 37 Java APIs used in Android. Whether Google's use was covered under fair use and therefore permissible was the question they could not agree upon. That's the single most important infringement accusation in the case, and the judge will have to find a way to deal with the jury's inability to decide the fair use question. Judge Alsup also has to decide if the SSO of the Java API is actually copyrightable as a matter of law he instructed the jury to proceed as though it is, but that remains an open question of significant importance. If Judge Alsup decides the SSO is not copyrightable, these questions won't matter in the first place.</p>
<center> <img alt="Questoin_2" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102641/Questoin_2.png">
</center> <center><i>No to 2A, and an N/A for 2B.</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>The issue of SSO is just one part of the story, however. The jury was asked to address four different questions in total, including whether Google had <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102641/Questoin_2.png">unfairly taken from the documentation</a> associated with the 37 Java APIs. They found that Google had not infringed Oracle documentation copyrights.</p>
<center> <img alt="Question_3" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102649/Question_3.png">
</center>
<center><i>Yes to 3A, No to 3B, and No to 3C</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>The <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102649/Question_3.png">literal copying of code and comments in some files</a> best exemplified by the nine lines of rangeCheck code found in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java was a charge that Google had already conceded. The question for the jury was whether the copying was in fact <i>de minimis</i>: too small to constitute any actionable infringement. Of the three subsets that the jury was asked to deliberate on, they found that Google had infringed with only one of the three: the rangeCheck code itself.</p>
<center> <img alt="Question_4" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102661/Question_4.png">
</center>
<center><i>Yes to 4A and No to 4B</i></center>
<p> </p>
<p>A large portion of the testimony the past two weeks had been devoted to whether <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1102661/Question_4.png">Sun had provided sufficient indications</a> in public or private for Google to reasonably assume that its adoption of the SSO was acceptable. This was hotly contested; things were so turned around that Google called former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz to the witness stand last week as the keystone to this portion of its defense. While the jury found that Sun's actions could have led Google to believe it didn't need a license, it decided that Google knew better back in Android's early days and didn't actually rely on Sun's representations. Several internal emails from Tim Lindholm, Andy Rubin, and Eric Schmidt talking about the need to license Java no doubt played a large part in the latter decision. However, this particular question was only provided to the jury to help guide the court's decision on the issue. Judge Alsup will ultimately make that call.</p>
<p>Google immediately moved for a mistrial given the results, and will be preparing a brief making its argument. On the issue of damages, Oracle counsel David Boies stated that Oracle should be owed a portion of Android profits given the rangeCheck infringement, a pivot from earlier statements that it was expecting just statutory damages for this portion of its accusations. Judge Alsup disregarded this almost immediately, stating that there should be just one line of statutory damages going to the jury, which would result in a much smaller number than Oracle had hoped to achieve with its legal action.</p>
<p>Without missing a beat, the trial has quickly shifted to the patent portion of the proceedings, but the mistrial motion isn't the only unresolved issue from the copyright phase. While the jury was instructed to proceed as if the SSO of the Java APIs were copyrightable, that question is still up for debate. A ruling from Judge Alsup that they are not would render the jury's verdict on the SSO infringement entirely irrelevant. Both Oracle's and Google's legal teams are preparing briefs on the question for submission to Judge Alsup by May 10th. Both sides will be submitting responses to the others' briefs on May 14th, with the judge making his decision at some point thereafter.</p>
<p><i>Matt Macari and Nilay Patel contributed to this report.</i></p>
<div class="article-meta clearfix">
<ul class="simplelist sourcelist clearfix">
<li class="tags clearfix">
<strong>Related Items</strong>
<span><a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/google">google</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/jury">jury</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/trial">trial</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/android">android</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/oracle">oracle</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/copyright">copyright</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/verdict">verdict</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/java">java</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/infringement">infringement</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/deadlocked">deadlocked</a> <a href="http://www.theverge.com/tag/judge-william-alsup">judge william alsup</a></span>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
05-07-2012, 03:13 PM
#39
Sanest Florida Man
Thread Starter
Also MS signed a $300 Million deal with barnes & noble -whom were thought to be android's best chance to fight off the evil microsoft- to spin off their Nook tablet from B&N and in the process signed an Android licensing deal with MS.
This leaves only Foxconn, Inventec and Motorola to sign deals. We all know Motorola is going to go to trial though....
This leaves only Foxconn, Inventec and Motorola to sign deals. We all know Motorola is going to go to trial though....
05-07-2012, 04:09 PM
#40
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,306
Received 2,811 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
Doest google have to pay up for the safari tracking trick?
Sounds like a bad year for google
Sounds like a bad year for google