IT IS no secret that there is extensive lobbying in Europe, including some regarding software patents.
“It's like the SCO case all over again, this time with Dalvik/Android as the target rather than just Linux.”Fab from Linux Outlaw says that it seems "like @thurrott [Microsoft's booster Paul Thurrott [1, 2]] is a few days behind on tech news these days: http://outl.ws/hsB6RE he should have read http://outl.ws/harXBr"
To clarify, Fab points out that Thurrott emits FUD like "Source: More Code Theft in Google's Android" while "Florian Mueller Spreads Anti-Android FUD [which is simply untrue]". So here we have Microsoft boosters citing other Microsoft boosters/apologists/lobbyists who accused (libellously) Google of "code theft". It's like the SCO case all over again, this time with Dalvik/Android as the target rather than just Linux. No wonder Court Justice Jackson called Microsoft executives "gang members" back in the days. That's just the way the company operates. Following debunking of some of these still-propagated lies, The Inquirer says that "Mueller is forced to back off android copyright infringement claims":
If that sentiment sounds somehow familiar, then cast your mind back to August 2010, when Microsoft claimed that Android wasn't free for the smartphone makers that choose to install the operating system. The following month, Tivanka Ellawala, a financial officer at Microsoft, made what can now be seen as a precursor to Mueller's comments, saying, "It does infringe on a bunch of patents, and there's a cost associated with that." That was merely Microsoft bluster, of course, because she didn't identify any patents to support that threatening claim.
Mueller added, "I'm sure those companies didn't intend to infringe Oracle's rights. They probably relied on the presumed legality of the Android codebase." But he wasn't specific.
The European Council has some difficulties to apply the TURCO judgement of the ECJ which clearly mandates a disclosure of legal advice unrelated to court proceedings. Legal advice concerning the enhanced cooperation on an unitary patent, they think they are permitted to keep it confidential. I strongly doubt so.