08.10.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 4:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple becomes a destructive company, not a productive company, as it seeks to ban products that exist in the market rather than compete fairly against them
APPLE is an abhorrent company with a powerful brand that it invested a lot to build. Apple is not truly an innovator in any area in particular; Apple merely assembles some bits it finds around itself and then integrates them. That’s what a lot of creation is really about.
Apple’s latest assault on Linux is a subject we wrote about early in the week. Basically, as part of the trend of “Using Patents to Stifle Competition”, “Apple Pulls a Fast One on Samsung” by having its Linux-powered product banned from Europe. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs’ close friend Larry Ellison carries on attacking those same products with patents and with copyrights, although Google seeks to throw out the latter weapon:
Google: Judge, Throw out the Copyright Claims of Oracle
This was my opinion from Day One. You cannot claim copyright on a language. Google’s developers write in Java and cross-compile to Dalvik, using Google’s stuff, not Oracle’s.
“Judge Slams Google for Inadequate Diligence” says one headline, but we mostly try to stick to Groklaw as a source. Microsoft has some lobbyists pressuring journalists to push its own cartel’s propaganda against Google, as recently confirmed in Germany (one of the leading anti-Android lobbyists is based in Germany).
“Microsoft has some lobbyists pressuring journalists to push its own cartel’s propaganda against Google, as recently confirmed in Germany (one of the leading anti-Android lobbyists is based in Germany).”Anyway, Apple has surely become an embargo company, whereas Microsoft mostly pressures for patent tax. “Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned in EU,” heralds The Australian and “Apple gets Samsung Galaxy Tab banned in E.U. with moronic ruling,” says ZDNet. “No rest for the patent extortionist company,” wrote one GNU/Linux advocate in response to this. To quote: “This decision has nothing to do with patents or copyrights. It has nothing to do with the lawsuits swirling around Android. This particular case was just about the design, the look of the Samsung Galaxy Tab, and that’s it. Now, I want you to click on this PDF copy of (European] Community design no. 000181607-000. Now, take a long hard look at it. What do you see?
“I’ll tell you what I see, it’s a freaking tablet. Yes, it looks like an iPad. But, it looks just as much like every tablet that’s ever existed or ever will exist. It’s a tablet.
“Where have I seen this before? Why, I remember! I recall my distant cousin Nichelle Nichols, that’s Lieutenant Uhura of Star Trek to you, “using” a tablet on the Enterprise back in 1966. I’m not the only one to have noticed the Star Trek/Apple iPad connection. Back when Apple introduced the iPad, actor Brent Spinner, aka Commander Data of Star Trek: The Next Generation, tweeted, “Didn’t Captain Picard used to play with a pad like that in his ready room? STAR TREK STRIKES AGAIN!!!” Yes, yes he did.”
“I didn’t think it could get any stupider than the US Patent Office and its idiot patents. But apparently Europe one-ups the United States in pure stupidity,” the advocate responds angrily. “Apparently a single judge in a regional court in Germany can issue an injunction against a corporation for the whole EU without allowing the corporation to defend themselves, or even informing them that the action is about to take place. And all this over a “rectangular shaped tablet with rounded corners.” There must be five million examples of prior art here. How much is Apple investing in the bribing of judges and those who issue bogus “community designs?”
“Apple can go to hell.”
Apple still pretends to be a technology company while it fact it’s a marketing mobster, just like Microsoft. And to make matters worse, the British press says that “Apple sues Motorola in Europe over Xoom tablet” (so it just wants to ban all the competition). Well, the British press claims that the “Apple injunction startles Samsung” and the Australian press has the headline “Tablet wars: Apple seeks to destroy rival Galaxy”. Slashdot summarises as follows: “In a stunning and painful decision for Samsung, Apple got a German court to issue a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab.”
Then they cite the pro-Microsoft lobbyist from Germany, the guy who attacks Android on a full-time basis (he is probably being briefed by Microsoft’s PR departments, which organise coordinated FUD), often by distorting or making up claims. Jan Wildeboer, who loves to expose this lobbyist, writes that “Apple stops Samsung from offering Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe”, noting:
German court grants injunction to Apple. German article here. Quite some more, but thy all paraphrase the original article that was sent out by dpa.
Apple, it is time to grow up and face competition the way you should. Not in courts. In the market. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a damn fine piece of hardware with a brilliant display, as far as I have seen.
Apple apologists love to portray Apple as a victim here, using cases like this one. But it’s a pathetic defence which helps show that advocacy of Apple has become like some kind of religion, where even atrocious, inexcusable, anticompetitive acts can someone be justified. As Google recently stated, Microsoft and Apple are banding togather to attack the Linux-based Android, assisted also by Oracle. As ECT puts it:
A top Google lawyer has publicly called out the company’s three biggest patent enemies — Oracle, Microsoft and Apple — accusing them of undertaking a “hostile, organized campaign against Android.” Hours later, though, Microsoft punched back with evidence that Google turned down Redmond’s offer to join together in securing patents Novell had put up for sale.
Apple is part of a patent cartel and it is a shameful aggressor. We need to explain to people why they should boycott Apple and expose it for the rogue operation it has become in recent years. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.08.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 4:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: When Microsoft and Apple “get into bed together you have to start wondering what’s going on,” claims a Senior Vice President from Google, furthermore stressing that there is a “hostile, organized campaign” against the Linux-powered Android
THE patent attacks on Google are more or less coordinated as those who sue over Android are aware of other lawsuits and also speak about them. Microsoft, for example, implicitly congratulated Apple on its lawsuits against Android. These two companies also pool money together in order to form patent cartels (e.g. Nortel, CPTN) at the cost of billions. The US DOJ is investigating the Nortel sale based on numerous sources including Microsoft boosters who say:
The $4.5 billion Nortel patent sale to Microsoft, Research in Motion and Apple is reportedly the focus of a deeper investigation by U.S. antitrust regulators. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Justice Department is trying to determine whether the purchase would unfairly hurt smartphone makers that use Google’s Android operating system.
The consortium of businesses out-bid Google for the patent portfolio auctioned off by the bankrupt Nortel Networks last month. The extensive patent portfolio — 6,000 in total — touches nearly every aspect of telecommunications and additional markets as well, including Internet search and social networking.
There are some other notable pieces on the subject and Microsoft boosters try to either predict doom for Android or daemonise Google for buying IBM patents as recently found out and explained by one blogger:
Yesterday I noticed a very large number of new patents listed in the USPTO assignment records for Google from IBM, and made note of them in a post, Google Acquires Over 1,000 IBM Patents in July.
I didn’t expect or anticipate the interest that my post would stir up, though I probably should have, given what seems to be an increased amount of litigation directed at Google involving patent infringement claims, with Apple taking on HTC and Google, Oracle and Google disputing use of Java in Android, Purple Leaf taking exception to Checkout, and other suits.
Given the interest in the IBM patents in a number of places on the web and some conversations I had, I thought it might be a good idea to provide the list of patents that Google acquired earlier this month. Google acquired a number of additional patents from IBM earlier this year and last year as well. I included those in my February post, Google Patents, Updated and Google Self Driving Cars Get Jumpstart from IBM Patents.
Groklaw, which is very IBM-friendly, has a lot to say not only about the patent sale (remember what Professor Webbink does for a living) but also about the Oracle vs. Google case [1, 2, 3] which it helps suppress. It does seem likely that Oracle will be disappointed at the end.
Google calls patents the same as Richard Stallman calls them, based on the headline “Google On The Nortel Loss, Patents As Government-Granted Monopolies, And Plates Of Spaghetti” (source)
There is a lot of coverage linking back to Bloomberg. “Bloomberg reports that Google General Counsel Kent Walker likened patent purchases, and their resulting use, as a battlefield and added that it was hard to find a way through the “mess” of litigation,” says one news site.
“Google calls patents the same as Richard Stallman calls them…”Google claims that “It’s hard to find what’s the best path – there’s so much litigation [...] We’re exploring a variety of different things.”
The seminal report is here and there are second-hand accounts too, coming from many directions [1, 2, 3, 4]:
“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,” writes David Drummond, SVP and chief legal officer.
Drummond said that Android was becoming more and more popular and winning more and more users, however he added that its successes were being tarnished.
That latest claim is mentioned in this audiocast
“Google Responds To Microsoft’s “Gotcha”: They’re Diverting Attention With A Trick That Failed,” says the Washington Post headline. To quote:
Yesterday, Google wrote a post calling out Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and others for using “bogus” patents to try to kill Android. Some of the patents Google’s Chief Legal Officer David Drummond mentioned included the ones Microsoft acquired from Novell (not to be confused with Nortel, which happened later). When Microsoft saw this, two senior officials took to Twitter to effectively pants Google. You see, Microsoft had tried to get Google to partner with them to buy the Novell patents — Google turned them down. And Microsoft had the email to prove it.
This diversion/controversy is hinged upon Google’s post which validates an interesting take from Muktware:
Microsoft seems to be the favorite disciple of the Indian Guru. I have been covering Microsoft since the days it made bogus claims that Linux infringes on it patents and then the way they got their OOXML approved as an ISO standard by by hook or by crook. Ever since I take everything that this monopoly say with a grain of salt.
Yesterday when Google blogged about how Apple and Microsoft are piling up software patents to intensify attack on Android, I was certain of any confusion statement from Microsoft’s. It happened, we covered it here. We were expecting a response from Google and it came.
Daring Fireball: an Apple fan’s assessment of the situation
What’s more exciting to see is that Apple fanboys cum blogger are all excited about Microsoft’s ambiguous statement. Daring Fireball’s John Gruber writes, “So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK. But when others acquired them, it’s a ‘hostile, organized campaign’.”
What more evidence does he need than the fact that Apple has sued almost every Android player in the market over patent issues because the company doesn’t know what the healthy competition is. And Microsoft, like an extortion gang, is going after Android players demanding $15 per unit which is far more than the licence of Microsoft’s own WP 7. Still Mr Gruber doesn’t see any hostility here?
He goes on to say, “It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?”
Dr. Glyn Moody makes another call to abolish software patents:
As long-suffering readers will know, I’ve been warning about the growing problem of patent thickets in the field of software for some time now. Until relatively recently, I and a few others have been voices crying in the wilderness: the general consensus has been that patents are good, and more patents are better. But in the last few weeks, the first hopeful signs have appeared that at least some people are beginning to realise that software patents not only do not promote innovation, they actually throttle it.
Here is the part where Moody mentions Google while also taking note of these comments:
Finally, a very interesting interview with Google’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel appeared yesterday, in which he said:
“Patents are government-granted monopolies,” Walker then says quite matter-of-factly. “We have them to reward innovation, but that’s not happening here,” he says.
So, as you might expect, I’m pleased that people are finally waking up to the seriousness of the situation. More and more are beginning to talk about abolishing software patents altogether – something I have been advocating for years now. But I don’t think that goes far enough: we need to abolish all patents, for everything.
From Google’s point of view, there is a cartel in action:
Google chief legal officer David Drummond has claimed that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and other companies have waged a “hostile, organized campaign” against Google’s Android operating system using “bogus patents”.
“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,” Drummond said on Wednesday in a blog post.
CNET did cover this because when the cartel strikes, ignoring it would lead to allegation of bias. As more and more reports give room for Google’s plea, more members of the public will perhaps be incited against patents.
Pamela Jones is meanwhile back to blogging and she says that Microsoft breaks antitrust rules:
The trouble with FUD is at first it sounds correct, or at least plausible. So when Google complained about the Apple-Microsoft partnership and the deliberate patent policy against Google, Microsoft’s first response sounded like a killer blow. It said it had asked Google to join them. But… let’s take a little bit closer look, because in doing so, it let slip a fact that we did not know until now — that Google tried to get the 800 or so Novell patents that CPTN, an entity Microsoft set up with Oracle, Apple and EMC, eventually won.
That revelation tells us the most fundamental fact about patent law in the US today — namely that even if you have as much money as Google, you can’t freely innovate and provide fabulous products because the patent thicket is so dense already and the Proprietary Patent Club is joining hands to keep any newcomer out of the competition. And that’s exactly why articles about Google “whining” or viewing this as just a verbal war are missing the point Google was making, namely pointing out that it can be *illegal* to use patents for an anticompetitive purpose. There’s a line, and Google is indicating that it thinks that line has been crossed.
As we saw in the Novell patent scenario, the Department of Justice agreed that the deal was not acceptable, intervening to protect the Open Source community, so it understood the danger and altered what Microsoft in particular was allowed to do with the patents it arranged to buy.
So Google isn’t dreaming. This is antitrust reality and that may be why Microsoft took Google’s initial complaint seriously enough to respond.
This isn’t about patents. It’s about antitrust.
Microsoft’s booster Josh Lowensohn plays ball for Microsoft using CNET as the platform, leading to the illusion of balance (Microsoft is the aggressor really, not a victim)
Another audiocast from CNET touches the subject, but it is too conformist. As it is sponsored by Apple and Microsoft as key advertisers, it is also filled with conflicts of interest. In any event, Google wastes more money on this whole patent bureaucracy while HTC too finds itself needing to put up a fight against Apple, having surrendered to Microsoft. Here is an interesting take on it:
HTC Develops Workaround To Bypass Apple Patent Attacks
[...]
If the workaround are suitable HTC may share them with other partners of the Open Handset Alliance to help boost the deployment of Android.
MPEG-LA and Microsoft booster have posted a silly headline echoing MPEG-LA’s allegations against Google. One of them is in our IRC channel supporting the cartel known as MPEG-LA while the other previously spammed us with MPEG-LA promotion. Google would hate to depend on MPEG-LA as Ubuntu is already extorted by MEPG-LA (the main proponents of MPEG-LA are Microsoft, Apple, and Nokia). One reader wrote to us to say: “The [Ubuntu Forums] thread doesn’t really go anywhere but it does raise the interesting issue of whether any technology is safely imported into and used in the US these days.”
It is worth noting that Rick F., the Patent Troll Tracker, has just had his blog abducted by some cricket spammer. We really need more reporters to expose the shady workings of trolls like MPEG-LA (headed by a patent troll who hides behind a separate entity), which sometimes work at the behest of a "criminal enterprise” using them as a proxy. Thankfully, people are starting to realise how this whole industry of patents really works. It’s repellent. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.07.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Patents at 3:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple is aiming at embargo of the competition rather than improvement of its own products, choosing a walled gardens approach against this nuisance called “counterparts”
IN ORDER to justify purchases of its overprices products, Apple needs to ensure it lacks any real competition. As we have been showing since Apple started its patent attacks on Linux (early 2010), Apple has no qualm about acting like a thug, despite its relative wealth. Those who preach for arrogance are expectedly arrogant themselves. Techrights lacks sympathy for Apple simply because Apple deserves none, and not just because of its size (SCO too became unpopular, despite rapidly-decreasing scale).
According to this recent report, “One day after Apple’s Mac OS X Lion was released into the wild, Steve Jobs’ bête noire, Adobe, has released an extensive list of wounds that the big cat has clawed into its products.”
“Problematic apps include such stalwarts as Photoshop CS3, CS4, and CS5; Dreamweaver CS4, and Illustrator CS5 and CS5.1,” says this report. Some quality, eh?
“I don’t understand how this can be possible,” remarks one Linux advocate sarcastically. “Surely “professional” proprietary software is meant to be superior to all that “freetard hobbyware” stuff.
“So what happened?
“Why didn’t Adobe simply download the sources to Apple’s software (or possibly vice versa), make the modifications necessary to get it all working together properly, rebuild it then publish it in their repo?”
“But in terms of actual market share (usage, not money), Apple only commands about 4% globally (according to Apple’s own SEC filings).”Apple may have a very powerful brand and it still appeals to rich people for whom unnecessary expenditures are largely acceptable. But in terms of actual market share (usage, not money), Apple only commands about 4% globally (according to Apple’s own SEC filings). By some estimates, GNU/Linux is still ahead of Apple, however GNU/Linux is not a company. Apple knows that commodity products can doom its core business.
“Somebody is truely [sic] blind,” says Norbert Evenich about Apple apologism (from Cult of Mac in this case). It is amazing how far some people would go to defend Apple’s aggression. Well, Apple has not gotten its way yet and its first victim, HTC, is still fighting back — a subject to be touched on in a later post.
Realising that GNU/Linux is on its tail (especially in lucrative areas like mobile devices), Apple decides to sue and sue and sue…
Apple is now trying to black Linux-based tablets and one report says:
Apple is seeking an injunction against Samsung which would block the Korean electronics giant from launching the latest version of its Galaxy tablet computer in Australia until the patent lawsuit is resolved.
On Monday, a Federal Court in Sydney heard Apple lawyer Steven Burley claim that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 had infringed 10 Apple patents, including the “look and feel” and touchscreen technology of the iPad.
Well done, Apple? Need we look at all those whom Apple imitates? The company’s spiritual leader, Steve Jobs, has himself admitted that Apple “steals” great ideas.
Well, Apple’s legal actions have thus far been unproductive as the legal head called it quits (maybe he got fired), as we covered a few weeks ago. Samsung is in fact Apple’s supplier in some areas, so Apple essentially attacks its own production line. Samsung is undeterred, at least based on the fact that it shrugs off Apple’s actions (Samsung has a massive patent arsenal too). Apple turning into an embargo company is a sign of the times, indicating again that patents need be reconsidered as a whole. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 will sell in Australia despite Apple’s complaint. “Samsung has said that its forthcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 set for release in Australia is different from the device sold in the U.S. — which is the hardware Apple has targeted in its lawsuit. Because it is a different device, the Korean electronics company believes it is free to release its iPad competitor down under, according to a statement released to Ausdroid.net,” says the cited source.
“If Samsung fights back against Apple, why did it agree to pay Microsoft for Linux back in 2007?”“The company did not reveal what the difference is between the U.S. Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the one that Samsung will release in Australia. The statement did reveal that no other Samsung smartphones or tablets are affected in the Australian market or other countries,” it adds.
If Samsung fights back against Apple, why did it agree to pay Microsoft for Linux back in 2007? Maybe because those two companies had collaborated in many areas? That has been our guess over the years. We continue to encourage a boycott of Samsung for this reason. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.25.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Java, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 4:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Amid growing pressure from Apple, Microsoft, and perhaps its drone Nokia, Google plans to buy companies for their patents, thus becoming part of the problem for the sake of “defending” Android
“Abducted by lawyers” is how we recently described Google, after it had clarified that it would not join the abolitionists*. Dennis Crouch meanwhile covers Apple’s and Microsoft’s latest cartel additions, i.e. patents accrued (Apple reported paid for about half for this assault on Android) and Professor Mark Webbink has this important update on the Oracle vs. Google case, showing of course the opposite of what pro-Microsoft lobbyists want the public to see. Oracle’s case is quickly falling apart. “Sorry for the movie analogies,” notes Webbink, “but these images keep popping to mind. The latest is Larry Ellison as Golum, grasping his “Java” patents and declaring, “My Precious.” This comes to mind because of the revelation yesterday that Jonathan Schwartz, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, praised Google and others for incorporating Java into Android back in 2007.
“But thanks to the Internet Archive and its Wayback Machine, Schwartz’ statement survives.”
–Mark Webbink“Then the patents fell out of Sun’s hands and into Oracle’s (My Precious), and Schwartz’ statement became an embarrassment. What to do? Why remove it from the internet, of course. But thanks to the Internet Archive and its Wayback Machine, Schwartz’ statement survives.
“Now the interesting question about this and other similar comments that were apparently made by Sun executives is whether the statements communicated an understanding to Google and others that they would not be threatened with Sun’s patents; statements upon which they relied. This is the legal doctrine of estoppel.”
Watch the screenshot too.
Some people are piecing together FUD pieces about Google, and not just lobbyists like Florian and those whom he mass-mails for placement in the press. Here is just one example and a reminder that Google’s plan is to buy patents as a response to this. This seems like more than a rumour now.
Search engine giant Google is looking to acquire mobile chip technology maker InterDigital, after failing to purchase Novell’s massive patent portfolio.
[...]
InterDigital, which has a market value of about $3.1 billion, saw its shares rise by 29 percent to $68.67 thanks to the takeover rumours.
It has been hinted even by Nokia itself — now that it is a Microsoft drone — that it might be next in its attempts to extort Google and raise the price of Android using patents. Just pay attention to this news report:
Nokia Oyj, the world’s largest phone maker by volume, posted better-than-expected quarterly profit thanks to a major royalty boost from settling a patent dispute with Apple.
Nokia reported a second-quarter underlying operating profit of 391 million euros, above all expectations in a Reuters poll, which ranged from a loss of 35 million to profit of 285 million.
Nokia is part of the same cartel as Microsoft’s, especially after the company got hijacked by Microsoft, with Microsoft’s big private shareholders appointed to become the company’s CEO. Symbian was taken proprietary by him and MeeGo, the Linux effort, virtually abandoned. █
___
* In software patents opposition — like in many other areas of activism — there are many factions and attitudes. Some classify certain software patents as “bad” and others as “good” (usually “theirs” versus “ours”), some want to get rid of patents altogether, some target only software patents, some target patent trolls, etc.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.20.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 12:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Image from Wikipedia
Summary: As expected, Google steps in to defend Android distributors from patent attacks that mostly fall flat on their face (80% of the patents discarded)
TECHRIGHTS watches the Android patent situation closely because it impacts the future of GNU/Linux, even if just by inference. Google responds with its former CEO claiming that Apple resorts to patent aggression because it “can’t respond through innovation” (he does not imply that innovation means patents but rather the opposite). “Patents must be invalid soon. Free world must help here,” exclaims one of our readers. It is true that lack of software patents is essential for software freedom, which is why this whole subject is so important. Those who cannot recognise the importance of the matter are advised to look at the recent history of software patents, especially after the patent deal with Novell (which gave purpose to this site).
The remarks from Google’s outgoing CEO are important because they suggest that Google will step up to defend partners and patents are currently not the weapon (or defence) of choice. Recall the past of Schmidt inside Apple. He only recently (in historical terms) walked away from Apple and now he slams Apple, promising to defend against Apple’s attacks:
Schmidt, speaking at a Google mobile conference in Tokyo today, expressed confidence that HTC will ultimately prevail over Apple, ZDNet Asia reports.
“We have seen an explosion of Android devices entering the market and, because of our successes, competitors are responding with lawsuits as they cannot respond through innovations,” he said. “I’m not too worried about this.”
The ITC is crippling the US by denying import of fine products. That is the background to the story above. And in other news, Apple’s products too might get banned because of the ITC, the enforcement agency of the USPTO, i.e. another inherently corrupted institute which is run by those looking for profit, not public services.
Despite gloomy predictions, the real scenario involves just two patents that need to be tackled now. As one way of putting it:
Apple have filed thirteen complaints of patent violations against HTC (one of the three largest Android device manufacturers) to the US International Trade Commission. This particular body has the right to uphold or ignore patent claims, and in the case of the former the main committee can force a complete import ban on all infringing devices.
It turns out that two patents have already been upheld in this way.
Most of the press just went along with this kind of coverage, looking at the empty half (or 20%) of the glass.
Apple won the preliminary ruling at the end of last week, giving it more confidence that it will prevail in its complaint that HTC is infringing two of its patents. HTC of course will continue to litigate the matter, because as we all know much of the business of the modern IT firm is to sit in court rooms and squabble over who did what to whom and when and how.
It is not clear how applicable this is to companies other than HTC, but some journalists speculate to amplify the fear (Microsoft Florian the lobbyist is pushing for this sort of spin behind the scenes).
Quoting some more coverage of the case, Wintel press (which likes to quote pro-Microsoft talking points) goes with the Microsoft/Apple mainstream, whereas Neil Richards challenges the lack of balance by stating: “ITC, The U.S. International Trade Commission, has rejected 8 out of 10 patent claims made by Apple. Apple originally files a complaint that HTC infringes upon 10 of its patents. The judge ruled that HTC infringed only on 2 patents.
“It is a dead end for Android? No. According to reports only one of the two patents in question might be related to Android.
“Some newspapers are reporting the doom of Android, all referring to a blog written by Florian Mueller. Mueller wrote as if the case is the end of Android without mentioning that it was Apple which lost 8 patents, which means the company won’t be able to use those patents against any other mobile player.
Why are they quoting a lobbyist? This just shows the sad state of today’s press.
Christine Hall has strong criticism of Apple, noting that “Apple Patents Portrait/Landscape Flipping”. She alleges that the “other evil empire, Apple, has managed to obtain a patent on the gee-whiz portrait/landscape flipping feature on the iPhone (and about all other mobile devices these days). Does anybody besides me smell a bunch of lawsuits in the works?”
Well, as put by a reader yesterday, “As M$ becomes less relevant, Apple might become more of a problem especially with patents.
“Apple is now valued at $336 billion. That makes anything it does, good or bad, more pronounced.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.15.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 5:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Un análisis de referencia, que se produce poco después de las noticias más importantes en materia de patentes de Nortel y el revés más reciente de Oracle.
OTRO día que pasa y el nivel de patentes FUD ha disminuido un poco, lo que es una buena noticia. Tom Krazit escribió este artículo[http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-google-and-android-must-deal-with-the-mobile-protection-racket/] que nos perdimos hace unos días. Sugiere para Google el “Plan B-Es tal vez un poco exagerado llamar a esto un “plan”, pero Google está esencialmente abriendo sus brazos a la comunidad de propiedad intelectual, dispuesto a escuchar a casi todo el mundo con patentes de móviles para la venta o alquiler. Va a tener que conseguir la cobertura de patentes de alguna manera, y no parece importarle si eso es a través de una sola vez se refiere a las pequeñas empresas, las grandes adquisiciones, o acuerdos de licencia de patentes con sus enemigos. También tien la esperanza de que los reguladores federales van a modificar los términos del acuerdo, mientras que revisarlo, similar a la forma en la venta de patentes relacionadas con Novell fue alterado por el Departamento de Justicia por las quejas subsiguientes, y tiene un sueño que el Congreso puede dejar de jugar el pollo con el techo de endeudamiento y abrazar la reforma de patentes real.
“Los que realmente pagan por patentes de Nortel somos todos nosotros.”“Este es un verano decisivo para Android. Se levantó a la prominencia como el anti-iPhone, pero ha logrado unir a Apple, Microsoft y Research in Motion en un consorcio de competidores que están tratando de dar con Google en su punto más vulnerable.”
No es una gran pieza en absoluto, sino que se pone en el punto sobre aspectos anticompetitivos.
Los que realmente pagan por patentes de Nortel somos todos nosotros. Es sólo un impuesto mayor sobre todo, como se explica aquí[http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=72958000000000444]:
Los verdaderos perdedores aquí fueron a los consumidores que pagarán más por las cosas producidas bajo las patentes. También vamos a ver menos la competencia entre empresas y menos innovación. Esto afianza aún más la posición de pie ya mucho tiempo de los titulares, lo que también restringen la innovación.
¿Todavía pienso patentes promueven la innovación?
Compare esto con los sinverguenzas impulsores de Microsoft como Inna Fried que dicen cosas como “Microsoft podría hacer más de Licencias de Android que con Software” (otros refuerzos Microsoft va con el mismo punto de hablar en estos días). Para citar una observación precisa[http://allthingsd.com/20110708/microsofts-android-related-patent-moves-have-a-familiar-ring/?mod=googlenews]: “La semana pasada, Microsoft anunció cuatro acuerdos con fabricantes de dispositivos más pequeños Android Onkyo, Wistron, Velocity Micro y General Dynamics Itronix.
“Hay algunas diferencias entre el enfoque actual con Android y Microsoft tuvo un vis-à-vis Linux. Con Linux, Microsoft suele evitar tomar la ruta de los litigios.”
—Ina Fried
“Hay algunas diferencias entre el enfoque actual con Android y Microsoft tuvo un vis-à-vis Linux. Con Linux, Microsoft suele evitar tomar la ruta de los litigios. No fue hasta años después de su inicio de licencias Linux que presentó su primera demanda contra Linux de reclamos relacionados -. Una demanda contra el fabricante de GPS TomTom que se resolvió rápidamente ”
Sí, esto es muy cierto, pero Fried esta en la camita con Microsoft desde hace varios años en CNET, da una plataforma a los chantajistas de patentes de Microsoft y justifica estos actos abusivos. Fried deben estar completamente avergonzado de ello.
Empresas como Novell se dieron por vencidos sin luchar[http://www.muktware.com/blogs/1731] o en el caso particular de Novell en realidad se acercó a Microsoft para un acuerdo. Así que en cierto sentido, la observación citada de Fried es la correcta. Basándose en los informes que hemos acumulado, Melco – No HTC – probablemente fue la primera empresa a la cueva a punta de pistola. Es difícil saber a ciencia cierta, sin embargo, debido a las NDAs.
Microsoft no es la única empresa en una posición de ofensa a Android y reconocemos que Oracle también tiene que ser visto. Sobre la base de más información de Groklaw, Google está haciendo[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110712132428349] bastante bien destrozar Oracle patentes y añade Pogson[http://mrpogson.com/2011/07/13/oracle-v-google-poised-to-become-very-interesting/]:
Si el movimiento de Google para incluir las nuevas defensas es aceptada, el caso de Oracle crece unos agujeros enormes será un jurado en apuros para pasar por alto. Si el movimiento de Google se niega, Google tendrá razón excelente para apelar una decisión negativa. No hay ninguna indicación aquí de que Google va a tomar el camino más fácil y resolver. Hay indicios de que las patentes de software tendrá otro clavo en su ataúd. Google tiene los recursos para encontrar la técnica y son expertos en la búsqueda.
La patente ’702 se trata de máquinas virtuales, algo que IBM ha estado trabajando desde la década de 1960 para dividir los recursos de la computadora central del Sistema 360. Recuerdo que la máquina con su walk-in compartimentos y parpadeando las luces incandescentes. Todo esto es anterior a UCSD p sistema de Java y por muchos años. IBM utiliza en la actualidad que la historia para vender sus soluciones virtuales a los clientes. Estoy seguro de que el juez podrá disfrutar de la lectura. Estoy seguro de que un juez justo va a querer toda la historia a ser contada en la corte.
Aquí está un nuevo informe sobre el tema[http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Oracle-defends-Java-patent-1277340.html] (de una fuente confiable). Se dice que la USPTO “provisionalmente rechazó, parcial o totalmente, cinco de los siete patentes de Java a través de cuya supuesta infracción Oracle ha tomado Google a los tribunales. Sin embargo, Oracle ha negado a aceptar este rechazo. En respuesta a la USPTO, el proveedor de software explica por qué cree que la previa referencia a “la técnica” no se aplica.”
Apple y Oracle están conectados a través de su CEO, Ellison y Jobs. Hemos escrito mucho sobre esto.
“Un bien las manos, pero sólo Steve Jobs puede utilizar dos”, se lee este titular[http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/one-finger-ok-only-steve-jobs-can-use-two-fingers]
En términos generales, Apple parece estar diciendo que si se utiliza más de un dedo para hacer algo en una pantalla táctil, usted está violando su propiedad intelectual.
Apple probablemente se trate de utilizar las patentes en contra de tabletas Android[http://techrights.org/2011/05/13/altitude-capital-partners-revisited/]. Qué vergüenza. █
Traducción hecha por Eduardo Landaveri, Administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 5:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Los rivales de Google, acusados de conspirar contra Android” ~ titular Forbes.com (esta semana)
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: A medida que el asalto de patentes contra Linux/Dalvik/Java (Android) es cada vez más intenso, se realizan llamadas a Google para dejarse de cojudeces y unirse al lado del público, aliándose con los que tratan de poner fin a todas las patentes de software.
MICROSOFT piensa que lo tiene todo resuelto. Promovió a Horacio, el mafioso de patentes clave, no hace mucho tiempo, mientras que Apple dice que han dejado ir a su jefe abogado de patentes[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-apple-hp-patent-idUSTRE76B0SF20110712] (tal vez se fue por su cuenta, pero no parece así[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388374,00.asp] porque IDG dice que “el abogado actual de Apple de patentes principal se informa, ha dejado a la empresa después de no poder bloquear a los fabricantes de Android de usar características similares a las del iPhone”).
Así que de todos modos, los cambios importantes en Apple son evidentes después fallar al tratar de hacer daño a Android con los ataques de patentes. HTC no se ha rendido (Apple va a volver a intentarlo[http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/apple-accuses-htc-of-patent-breach/articleshow/9206294.cms]) y Samsung dió un duro golpe a Apple después de la demanda impulsiva de Apple. La empresa de marca, Apple, no del todo puede llegar a transformarse en una compañía de extorsión. Microsoft tampoco puede, sin embargo, a pesar de que lo ha intentado desde 2006 (con Novell). El “progreso” de Microsoft implica sobre todo las pequeñas empresas que a nadie le importa qué pasa con ellas o no, no puede contra Red Hat e incluso Canónical. Aquí vemos la molestia llamada Tuxera encontrar otro lugar para poner los impuestos de patentes de Microsoft[http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/rockchip-selects-tuxera-ntfs-exfat-file-system-interoperability-tablets-phones-webtv-1537045.htm], pero una vez más, quién ha oído hablar de Rockchip? Wikipedia aún apenas lo menciona[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockchip]. Como ya hemos explicado hace poco, cuando los ataques de Microsoft contra una empresa mediana o grande, se enfrenta a una respuesta, así que ahora sólo juega a lo “seguro” al atacar a sólo a los débiles en el patio de la escuela. Eso es sólo el juego de Microsoft. Patético. ¿Por qué Microsoft no demanda a Google y ver sus patentes invalidadas, una por una, de la misma manera que Oracle lo hace? Sólo veamos lo último de Groklaw:
* Oracle v. Google – La Corte Duda del Informe de Daños de Oracle[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110710090010182]
Juez Alsup claramente cree que el informe de daños de Oracle presentado por el profesor Iain Cockburn no ha proporcionado una base sólida para aplicar el “valor de todo el mercado” de la teoría de los daños y perjuicios. Entonces, ¿qué es la teoría del “mercado total” de daños y perjuicios?
* Oracle v. Google – Google Mueve su Complementaria Defensas de Invalidez[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110712074100640]
En otro caso, la construcción de la corte reclamo abierto de la técnica previa que no se podía utilizar antes (véase la sección. Un argumento en el movimiento). En su búsqueda, obviamente, muy profunda de las técnicas previas, Google también encuentra referencias que dice demostrar evidencia. (Vea las secciones E, G y H en discusión en el movimiento) en una cuarta instancia Google dice que JavaOS Oracle es en sí misma de la técnica anterior, y se JavaOS a disposición del público durante más de un año antes de la patente afirmó.
“Google recientemente realizado una oferta muy grande por las patentes de Nortel”, nos escribió un lector de esta mañana. “Lo que Google puede hacer con el USD aproximadamente $ 4B que habría utilizado para las patentes de Nortel sería saltar a la política de EE.UU. de cabeza y luchar para que se prohibieran de nuevo las patentes de software. Hay varias opciones que van desde la financiación de las campañas directas (debido a la nueva normativa) o de cabildeo normal.
“Una ley como esta en última instancia, ahorraría a Google más de lo que lo hace por luchar cada caso por separado. Hay un número creciente de “entidades no productivas”, como se refieren a menudo a los trolls de patentes, y luchar contra ellos de uno en uno o de patente a patente, no va a ayudar a nadie, excepto a los abogados de patentes. En el ejemplo de Android, que se puede pedir más bien pequeñas sumas por teléfono, pero 5 o 10 dólares multiplicado varias veces rápidamente el precio de los dispositivos del mercado. Lo mejor es centrarse en el corazón del problema y después de ir directamente a la cuestión de patentabilidad “.
Techrights hizo una sugerencia similar ayer[http://techrights.org/2011/07/12/ending-of-software-patents-and-goog/]. La Star tiene este nuevo artículo[http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/google/article/1021236--google-left-searching-for-patent-ammunition-after-nortel-loss], que dice:
La pérdida de Google en las licitaciones para $ 4.5 mil millones (EE.UU.) por la cartera de patentes de Nortel Networks Corp. la semana pasada significa que la compañía de búsqueda de Internet busca comprar otros inventos para construir un baluarte en contra de demandas dirigidas a su sistema Android, dicen los agentes de patentes.
“Hay un montón de carteras fenomenal para la venta”, dijo Dean Becker, director ejecutivo de corretaje ICAP patente en Palm Beach, Florida, la mayor compañía de venta de patentes. “Todas las empresas que operan en el mercado debido a los gastos, la distracción y el riesgo potencial financiero de los litigios de patentes.”
Hace unos días hemos observado que los reguladores de Canadá[http://techrights.org/2011/07/07/christian-paradis-on-nortel-sale/] y EE.UU.[http://techrights.org/2011/07/10/usdoj-vs-nortel-swpats-sale/] podrian potencialmente intervenir, pero después de un avance desafortunado[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-11/nortel-says-main-objections-to-4-5-billion-patent-sale-resolved.html] y luego la autorización de la venta [1[http://www.mobiledia.com/news/97774.html], 2[http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/07/11/nortel-approval-patent-sale.html], 3[http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Nortel-patent-sale-approved-1277688.html]] nos queda suponer que el gobierno una vez más furtivamente está con las empresas y no con los intereses públicos . Los tribunales dan el visto bueno[http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/07/11/idINIndia-58203020110711]:
Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O), Research in Motion Ltd (RIM.TO) y otras tres compañías de tecnología líderes han recibido la aprobación de la corte el lunes para comprar patentes inalámbricas de bancarrota Nortel Networks por US $ 4.5 billones.
Los jueces de los Estados Unidos y Canadá aprobarón la venta de 6.000 patentes y solicitudes, que se vendió tres veces lo que esperaban algunos analistas de la subasta de cuatro días en junio.
Nortel Networks Corp (NRTLQ.PK) se declaró en bancarrota de los acreedores en enero de 2009 y los tribunales en los dos países la supervisión de la enajenación de activos de la compañía como los vientos gigante ex telecomunicaciones de sus operaciones.
Jack Wallen, dice que “el matón Microsoft está de vuelta[http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/the-microsoft-bully-is-back/2693]” en su nueva columna:
El matón Microsoft está de vuelta
[...]
Bueno, el color me sorprendió que el tirano conocido como Microsoft ha tratado de hacer todo lo posible para socavar a la competencia – no importa cuál sea el costo, lo que está en juego, o lo que la percepción del público en general. Este es el trato: En abril, Microsoft llegó a un acuerdo con Samsung en el que Samsung pagaría el gigante del software una suma no revelada para todos los teléfonos Samsung vendió – Get This – impulsado por el sistema operativo Android. Así es, MS hizo las afirmaciones habituales que Android (junto con todas las empresas en el planeta – independientemente de lo que producen) infringido patentes de Microsoft. ¿Revelarían las patentes infringidas? Por supuesto que no. Después de todo, ha sido el modus operandi de Microsoft durante décadas para ocultar la verdad por miedo a parecer como un niño mimado de tomar sus juguetes y volver a casa.
Por lo que respecta al público (el público que se preocupaba por Samsung y Android) se ha preguntando cuál es la cantidad y las patentes fueron. Bueno, ahora sabemos que Samsung paga la friolera de $ 15,00 por teléfono basado en Android vendido. Vamos a hacer que las matemáticas:
Samsung vendió 19 millones de teléfonos basados en Android en el segundo trimestre de 2011. A los 15 Smackers cada uno, que equivale a $ 285 millones de dólares.
“El FUD (Miedo, Incertidumbre y Duda) llega a ser mucho peor”, afirma Jonathan Angel[http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Rockstar-Bidco-LP-purchase-approved-while-Oracle-trial-may-be-delayed/?kc=rss] en Linux para dispositivos (eWEEK). Citando a las partes pertinentes: “En lo que somos conscientes, no ha habido ninguna explicación pública de las patentes de Microsoft que infringen los dispositivos Android. Tampoco está claro si, en última instancia, será posible para cualquier fabricante para crear un dispositivos Android sin tener que pagar un diezmo a Redmond.
“Lo que sí sabemos es que el FUD se ha vuelto mucho peor. Como ya informamos la semana pasada, Microsoft se unió a Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Research in Motion (RIM), y Sony en un consorcio denominado Rockstar Bidco LP – que logró ganar más de 6.000 patentes de Nortel Networks y solicitudes de patentes en una subasta de bancarrota. La oferta de $ 4,5 mil millones Rockstar superó a la propia Google, que podría haber comprado algún tipo de protección para Android, por más de $ 1 mil millones. ”
“Los rivales de Google, acusados de conspirar contra el Android”, dice este titular de blogs Forbes Magazine[http://blogs.forbes.com/mobiledia/2011/07/11/googles-rivals-accused-of-colluding-against-android/]:
El Instituto Americano de Defensa de la Competencia está pidiendo a los reguladores para investigar la venta de patentes de Nortel, lo que sugiere la oferta ganadora de los más grandes rivales de Google puede implicar colusión en contra de Android.
El grupo que se autodenomina Rockstar Bidco, que incluyen Apple, Microsoft y Research in Motion, compró tesoro de Nortel de las patentes por $ 4,5 mil millones, posiblemente la mayor subasta de la propiedad intelectual de todos los tiempos. La venta de inmediato expresó su preocupación de los defensores de defensa de la competencia, ya que los miembros de la coalición, sobre todo los rivales de Google, podrá utilizar las patentes para atacar el sistema operativo Android de Google.
Algunos bloggers menos conocidos de CNET hicieron lo correcto[http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20078710-266/android-users-dont-fret-over-googles-fee-battles/] por un cambio por ir con un título más pacificador, “los usuarios de Android: No se preocupe por las batallas cuota de Google” (que es una defensa en principio).
Los fabricantes de móviles con el Android de Google sistema operativo para móviles puede ser sancionado con cuotas de licencia adicionales si Oracle y Microsoft con la suya. Pero, ¿qué podría significar eso para el consumidor medio de teléfonos celulares? ¿El precio de los dispositivos Android subirían?
No es probable, dicen los expertos. Hay varias razones para pensar que las victorias legales de Oracle o Microsoft haría poco para mover la aguja en términos de precios para los consumidores. Es más, cualquier costo adicional puede ser añadido al teléfono probablemente sería compensado por el ahorro en otros lugares, aún garantizando que los fabricantes de teléfonos que generen márgenes decente en estos productos, el costo de hacer ellos también va hacia abajo.
No hay ninguna razón para asumir los mayores costos por el momento. Escribimos acerca de esto ayer[http://techrights.org/2011/07/12/idg-spin/]. Es parte de la campaña de FUD que los enemigos Android como Microsoft están coordinando.
Chris DiBona de Google dio una buena entrevista de ayer y que es ampliamente citado por decir que Android es una realización del sueño de Linux ([1] – [3] a continuación). Google, de hecho, acaba de publicar un código con licencia GPL (Licencia Pública General) para su última versión de Android, aunque no todos de la misma ([4] – [5] a continuación). Porque habría que defender a Android y también atacar a las patentes de software, Microsoft y Apple, que cada vez intentan utilizar contra Linux porque es la única arma que a los gorilas les queda, a excepción de la comercialización y FUD. Si somos capaces de derrotar a las patentes de software, espero que con el apoyo de Google, Linux definitivamente va a ganar. Damos la dirección de DiBona (cdibona@google.com) con la esperanza de que la gente pueda escribir en él cortésmente como era su costumbre responder a mensajes de correo electrónico. Esperemos que los idiotas comunicados de prensa como este nuevo que dice: “[H]emos ha presentado recientemente una patente de software emocionante nueva” llegará a su fin. La economía de EE.UU. tiene suficientes problemas, incluso sin los carteles de la patente. Cada patente presentada sólo empeora las cosas, aunque no a aquellos que ven los carteles de lo más inclusivo e ignoran las externalidades. Google debe luchar contra los cárteles de patentes, no encontrar una manera de comprar una membresía en ellas (con las adquisiciones de varias patentes). █
1. Google: “Android es el sueño hecho realidad del escritorio de Linux”[http://derstandard.at/1308186313932/Interview-Google-Android-is-the-Linux-desktop-dream-come-true]
Chris DiBona, jefe de Open Source de Google inicia conversaciones sobre el papel de Linux en la empresa y por qué Chrome y Android utilizan modelos de liberación de manera fundamentalmente diferentes.
Desde un inicio el código abierto ha estado jugando un papel importante en Google. Hoy en día se usa casi “todas partes” dentro de la empresa. Desde el servidor a los escritorios de ingeniería y los teléfonos inteligentes como Chris DiBona, Googles “Administrador de código abierto”, señala en una entrevista con derStandard.at. Él va a hablar acerca de Android como el “sueño hecho realidad de escritorio Linux”, y explica por qué el modelo de lanzamiento de Chrome y Android son tan radicalmente diferentes.
2. Gerente de Google de Código Abierto: Android es el Sueño de Linux Hecho Realidad[http://digitizor.com/2011/07/12/google-android-linux-dream/]
Con medio millón de dispositivos Android que se activan todos los días, no hay duda de que Android es uno de los sistemas operativos más populares hoy en día. No muchos usuarios se da cuenta de esto, pero Android está basado en Linux.
Android es sin duda el más popular de Linux, sistema operativo basado en el mundo. En una entrevista con el sitio web alemán derStandard.at, Chris DiBona, que es el Gerente de código abierto de Google, Android, ha dicho que es el sueño hecho realidad Linux.
3. Jefe del Código Abierto de Google Conversa abiertamente en Entrevista[http://ostatic.com/blog/googles-open-source-chief-talks-shop-in-interview]
4. GPL el Código Fuente de Android 3.2 disponible en AOSP[http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/6410b44798c19d61?pli=1]
5. Google no está publicando todo el código fuente de su última versión de su sistema operativo.[http://mobiputing.com/2011/07/open-source-portions-of-android-3-2-now-available/]
Traducción hecha por Eduardo Landaveri, Administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.14.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 2:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: An analysis by reference, occurring shortly after the major news regarding Nortel’s patents and Oracle’s latest setback
ANOTHER day goes by and the level of patent FUD has decreased somewhat, which is good news. Tom Krazit wrote this article which we missed some days ago. He suggests for Google “Plan B—It’s perhaps a bit of a stretch to call this a “plan,” but Google is essentially throwing open its arms to the intellectual property community, willing to listen to just about anyone with mobile patents for sale or rent. It’s going to have to get patent coverage somehow, and it doesn’t seem to care if that’s through one-off deals with small companies, large acquisitions, or even patent licensing deals with its foes. It’s also hoping that federal regulators change the terms of the deal while they review it, similar to how a patent sale involving Novell was altered by the Department of Justice following complaints, and has a pipe dream that Congress may stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling and embrace real patent reform.
“Those who really pay for Nortel’s patent is all of us.”“This is a crucial summer for Android. It rose to prominence as the anti-iPhone, but has managed to unite Apple, Microsoft, and Research in Motion in a consortium of competitors who are trying to hit Google in its most vulnerable spot.”
It’s not a great piece at all, but it does get across the point about anti-competitive aspects.
Those who really pay for Nortel’s patent is all of us. It’s just a major tax on everything, as explained here:
The real losers here were us consumers who will pay more for things produced under the patents. We will also see less inter-company competition and less innovation. This further cements the already long standing position of the incumbents, which will also restrict innovation.
Still think patents promote innovation?
Compare that to shamelss Microsoft boosters like Ina Fried who say things like “Microsoft Could Make More From Android Licensing Than From Software” (other Microsoft boosters go with the same talking point these days). To quote an accurate observation: “This past week, Microsoft announced four deals with smaller Android device makers Onkyo, Wistron, Velocity Micro and General Dynamics Itronix.
“There are some differences between the current approach with Android and the one Microsoft took vis-à-vis Linux. With Linux, Microsoft generally avoided going the litigation route.”
–Ina Fried“There are some differences between the current approach with Android and the one Microsoft took vis-à-vis Linux. With Linux, Microsoft generally avoided going the litigation route. It wasn’t until years after it started licensing Linux that it filed its first suit involving Linux-related claims — a suit against GPS maker TomTom that was quickly settled.”
Yes, this is quite true, but Fried played along with Microsoft for several years in CNET, giving a platform to Microsoft’s patent racketeers and justifying these abusive actions. Fried should be utterly ashamed of it.
Companies like Novell were giving up without a fight or in Novell’s particular case actually approaching Microsoft for a deal. So in some sense, Fried’s quoted observation is correct. Based on reports we accumulated, Melco — not HTC — was probably the first company to cave at gunpoint. It is hard to tell for sure, however, due to NDAs.
Microsoft is not the only company in a position of offence against Android and we recognise that Oracle too needs to be watched. Based on more information from Groklaw, Google is doing quite alright trashing Oracle’s patents and Pogson adds:
If Google’s motion to include the new defences is accepted, Oracle’s case grows some huge holes a jury will be hard pressed to ignore. If Google’s motion is denied, Google will have excellent grounds to appeal a negative decision. There is no indication here that Google will take the easy way out and settle. There is indication that software patents will have another nail in their coffin. Google has the resources to find prior art and are experts at search.
The ’702 patent is about virtual machines, something IBM has been working with since the 1960s to divide up the resources of the System 360 mainframe. I remember that machine with its walk-in compartments and blinking incandescent lights. This all predated UCSD p system and Java by many years. IBM currently uses that history to sell its virtual solutions to customers. I am sure the judge will enjoy the reading. I am sure a fair judge will want the whole story to be told in court.
Here is one new report on the subject (from a trusted source). It says that the USPTO “has provisionally rejected, partially or in full, five of the seven Java patents over whose alleged infringement Oracle has taken Google to court. However, Oracle has refused to accept this rejection. In a response to the USPTO, the software vendor explains why it thinks that the reference to “prior art” does not apply.”
Apple and Oracle are connected through their CEOs, Ellison and Jobs. We wrote a lot about this.
“One Finger OK, But Only Steve Jobs Can Use Two,” reads this headline
Roughly speaking, Apple seems to be claiming that if you use more than one finger to do something on a touchscreen, you’re infringing on their intellectual property.
Apple will probably try to use such patents against Android tablets. For shame. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA