06.29.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 2:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Due to software patents in the United States, Microsoft can act like a thug and extort rivals, making money out of code it never wrote at all
So, another company got sued and entered the racketeering operation set up with Microsoft’s funding, according to this report. Yes, the world’s biggest patent troll has gotten more revenue out of companies which actually make something and another Microsoft patent troll, Paul Allen from Interval, files for more legal action:
In a not surprising move, Interval Licensing has filed a motion [PDF, text below] with the court to reconsider the stay in the proceedings the court just granted two weeks ago. The court will need to consider this motion, and it is worth considering the arguments that Interval advances for reconsideration.
BlueCat is not the only victim of patent trolls and neither is “the world”, as Groklaw puts it (in reference to Allen’s lawsuit). Even large companies like Nortel might become trolls’ feast, based on this report:
We have devoted a lot of digital ink at Washington Legal Foundatoin’s blog, The Legal Pulse, to the parasitic activities of so-called “patent trolls” – entities which use their patents as litigation swords rather than empowerment devices for innovation (see, e.g., here and here). With federal patent reform finally a real possibility, trolls’ abusive practices have attracted the attention of policymakers as well as leading civil justice reform advocates. We hope they will also be cognizant of today’s auction of over 6,000 patents owned by bankrupt telecom equipment company Nortel. The triumphant bidder will control a formidable patent portfolio which could fuel billions of dollars worth of offensive patent lawsuits or offer solid defenses against future patent litigation. See this post for a great FAQ on the auction.
We have also just learned that Microsoft might be after Nortel’s patents, after it lobbied against Google buying them. What a hypocrite.
Microsoft itself would be a terrible place for these patents because it continues to extort companies with patents while journalists stand by idly. Microsoft probably briefed some of them because the aapologists are prominent among the search results (i.e. those publishing early) and we have Microsoft boosters like this one at the top of Google News results. This extortion was covered here before and the Microsoft boosters have a lot of fun with it. Microsoft Nick has an article that at least admits bad behaviour by quoting that:
[B&N]’s counterclaim, filed April 25 with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, described Microsoft as repeatedly arguing that its patent portfolio would “entirely preclude the use of Android Operating System by the Nook,” and mentions that both HTC and Amazon have entered into patent-licensing deals with Redmond.
“Microsoft is misusing these patents as part of a scheme to try to eliminate or marginalize the competition to its own Windows Phone 7 mobile device operating system posed by the open source Android operating system and other open source operating systems,” it read at one point. “Microsoft’s conduct directly harms both competition for and consumers of eReaders, smartphones, tablet computers and other mobile electronic devices, and renders Microsoft’s patents unenforceable.”
We wrote about this at the time. ECT wrote out this too:
…Barnes & Noble (NYSE: BKS) and Motorola (NYSE: MOT), are fighting Microsoft in court.
“Microsoft’s under threat, and part of the threat is that Android is a free operating system, while Windows Phone 7 is not free,” Joshua Greenman, president of Mercury Development, told LinuxInsider.
“Microsoft’s trying to do the same thing with Android that it’s been trying to do with Linux — make the argument that there’s a high cost of ownership for these platforms — and back up its claims with patent lawsuits,” Greenman said.
Microsoft spokesperson Annie Truong declined to discuss the issue.
All in all, this whole affair demonstrates abuse with software patents and moreover Microsoft’s exception in that regard. What we need to do is remove software patents from the United States before these spread further. Sadly, however, SCOTUS Has had disappointing rulings recently (we gave examples), ones that empower monopolies at the expense of people and arguably validate software patents. According to this from Groklaw (it also links to the
Bessen study), not much is being improved and the FFII’s president looks back at Bilski/SCOTUS days with disappointment. To quote:
The primary winners from all this are the patent lawyers. Not only are there few restrictions on what can be patented, but the high court’s failure to articulate a clear rule means even more litigation. All is not lost, though. Justice Stevens is retiring, but Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor all signed onto his opinion. If Justice Kagan sides with her fellow liberals, then they’ll need just one more vote to restore some sanity to patent law. As the patent system continues to inflict damage on the IT industry, the need for reform will only get more obvious. Hopefully, the next time the Supreme Court has an opportunity to fix the problem, Justice Scalia will get off the fence.
Prof. Webbink (Groklaw) looks at the major legal case against Android (seeking billions in damages). To quote:
Last week we began a tracking table on the various reexaminations filed on the patents that Oracle has asserted against Google in their dispute over JAVA-like code included in the Android operating system. Another office action [PDF] has been issued by the USPTO, this one on the ’520 patent, and in this instance Oracle fared a little better. Out of 22 claims subject to reexamination, only eight were rejected.
Fighting against software patents one and one like this is the type of game Webbing might prefer playing because he is into Peer to Patent and all that jazz. But it does almost nothing towards eliminating all software patents. In some ways, it makes things worse, for reasons we gave on several occasions before. Countries must reject software patents as a whole, not on a one-by-one basis .█
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.28.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Oracle, Patents at 4:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Otra mirada a la queja en contra de MPEG-LA, el caso de Oracle contra el Android de Google, y el caso de Paul Allen contra el mundo.
La lucha contra la agresión con las patentes de software se encuentra con algún éxito temprano, pero es prematuro cantar victoria antes de las sentencias finales. Por otra parte, enfrentar el problema de patentes a patente sería ineficaz y poco práctico.
Las patentes están perjudicando a las normas y la FTC (Comisión Federal de Comercio) ha sido informada de eso[http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/56718.html] por la buena gente detrás de Ogg (EN[http://techrights.org/2011/06/20/xiph-vs-mpeg-cartel/] | ES[http://techrights.org/2011/06/23/xiph-vs-mpeg-cartel_es/]).
No fue hace tanto tiempo que hubo la intervención federal después de las malas prácticas de las patentes de Rambus, como hemos explicado en el momento [1[http://techrights.org/2008/05/25/making-and-writing-laws-for-fences/], 2[http://techrights.org/2008/04/24/ooxml-rambus-monopolisation/], 3[http://techrights.org/2008/04/22/ambush-reform-lobby/], 4[http://techrights.org/2008/03/27/sinking-me-slowly/], 5[http://techrights.org/2008/02/02/patent-abuse-royalties/], 6[http://techrights.org/2008/01/25/anti-competitive-software-patent-standard/], 7[http://techrights.org/2007/09/22/fear-trolling-abuse-threats-dismissal/], 8[http://techrights.org/2007/08/29/patent-abuse-news/], 9[http://techrights.org/2007/08/23/patent-abuse-stories/]]. Para el titular de la patente/s es bueno tener normas que prácticamente fuerzan a todos a pagar un impuesto, pero para todo el mundo es INJUSTO, IRRAZONABLE y DISCRIMINATORIO.
De acuerdo con Patently-O (blog a favor de las patentes), es posible que más resistencia a las patentes de software muy pronto tendrán que venir. Para citar a su conclusión[http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/06/supreme-court-to-revisit-patentable-subject-matter-eligibility.html]:
Esa decisión Circut Federal se basó en las máquinas o a prueba de transformación de la corte que fue desacreditada posteriormente por el Tribunal Supremo en Bilski v. Kappos (2010). A raíz de su decisión Bilski, la Corte Suprema dejó vacante la decisión del Tribunal Federal de Circuito de Prometeo y devuelto para un nuevo dictamen. En suspensión preventiva, el Circuito Federal afirmó de nuevo que las demandas de Prometeo son eligilble para la protección de patentes.
La prueba de Bilski o caso Bilski[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Bilski_Case] siguen llegando en ocasiones a veces se convierten en una base de éxito para invaliding patentes que llegan a la sala del tribunal[http://techrights.org/2009/07/11/in-re-bilski-vs-software-patent/]. Sin embargo, se necesita un paso más allá. Cualquier cosa por debajo de la eliminación de todas las patentes de software, simplemente dejaría al Software Libre en un estado dudoso, o un estado en el que se aprueba sólo una parte de él para su uso (pero no para su redistribución). En este momento, incluso Java, a pesar de ser software libre (se supone que no GPLv2, v3), está bajo un ataque de patentes de Oracle. Desde que Google está dispuesto a llegar muy lejos y el desafío de los alegatos, las patentes de Oracle [http://www.itworld.com/software/176653/oracles-patents-case-against-google-weakening](que se lo compró a Sun) son casi consideradas inaplicables (si es que dejan de ser válidas, lo que es cada vez más probable). Para citar a:
El caso de Oracle Java infracción contra Google no va excepcionalmente bien para el gigante de la base de datos en estos días, con un nuevo revés entregado por la Oficina de Patentes de los EE.UU. Oficina de Marcas (USPTO) en forma de un nuevo examen de patentes esta semana.
Históricamente, las cosas no han sido color de rosa para Oracle, ya que su demanda agosto 2010 se puso en marcha, acusando a Google de violar el software de Oracle Java.
Oracle adquirió la tecnología de Sun Microsystems Java, cuando compró la compañía en 2010. En lugar de licenciar Java de Oracle para su uso en Android, Google ha desarrollado una “sala limpia” versión de la máquina virtual de Java, Dalvik, para Android. Oracle dice que Dalvik deliberadamente viola Java de todos modos, a pesar de los esfuerzos para construir Dalvik desde cero.
Otro caso en contra de Google y otros, esta vez del co-fundador Microsoft, se está debilitando[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110624160811958]. Groklaw revela que:
En un juicioso (nunca mejor dicho) movida, el tribunal ha considerado la petición de suspensión presentada por los acusados que buscan suspender el juicio hasta después de la USPTO complete la reexaminaciones de las patentes de Interval. Pese a la oposición de Interval a esta moción, el tribunal ha concedido la estancia [PDF], y el juicio ahora espera los resultados de las determinaciones de la USPTO.
Así que aquí tenemos otro caso en el momento de la presentación de una demanda, las patentes en cuestión se desafian y tal vez, sólo con suerte, podrían ser declarados nulas y la demanda que se giraba en torno a ellos se deseche.
En sus escapadas de extorsión de patentes, Microsoft (o Apple) por lo general gira alrededor de demandar a las empresas pequeñas o meros distribuidores que tienen pocos incentivos – a diferencia de Google – para seguir adelante e invalidar las patentes – un proceso tedioso y caro. █
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
06.27.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Oracle, Patents at 10:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another look at the complaint against MPEG-LA, Oracle’s case against Google’s Android, and Paul Allen’s case against the world
The fight against aggression with software patents is met with some early success, but it is premature to declare victory before final judgments. Moreover, addressing the problem on a patent-by-patent basis would be inefficient and almost impractical.
Patents are hurting standards and the FTC is being informed of that by the good folks behind Ogg (EN | ES).
It was not so long ago that there was federal intervention following bad practices with patents from Rambus, as we explained at the time [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. For the patent holder/s it is great to have standards which virtually force everyone to pay a tax, but for everyone else it is unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory.
According to Patently-O (a pro-patents blog), it is possible that more resistance to software patents will soon need to come. To quote their conclusion:
That Federal Circut decision was based on the court’s machine-or-transformation test that was subsequently discredited by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos (2010). In the wake of its Bilski decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s Prometheus decision and remanded for a new opinion. On remand, the Federal Circuit again affirmed that the Prometheus claims are eligilble for patent protection.
The Bilski test or Bilski case keep coming up on occasions and sometimes they become a successful basis for invaliding patents that reach the courtroom. But a step further is needed. Anything short of elimination of all software patents would simply leave Free software in a dubious state, or a state where only a subset of it is approved for use (but not for redistribution). Right now even Java, despite being Free software (supposed to be GPLv2, not v3), is under a patent attack from Oracle. Since Google is willing to go quite far and challenge the allegations, Oracle’s patents (that it bought from Sun) are almost deemed unenforceable (if they become invalid, which is increasingly likely). To quote:
Oracle’s Java infringement case against Google isn’t going exceptionally well for the database giant these days, with another setback delivered by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the form of a patent reexamination this week.
Historically, things haven’t been rosy for Oracle since their August 2010 lawsuit was launched, accusing Google of infringing on Oracle’s Java software.
Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems’ Java technology when it bought the company in 2010. Instead of licensing Java from Oracle to use in Android, Google developed a “clean room” version of the Java virtual machine, Dalvik, for Android instead. Oracle says that Dalvik deliberately infringes on Java anyway, despite efforts to build Dalvik from scratch.
Another case against Google et al., this one from Microsoft’s co-founder, is weakening. Groklaw reveals that:
In a judicious (pun intended) move, the court has considered the motion for stay filed by the defendants seeking to stay the trial until after the USPTO completes the reexaminations of the Interval patents. Despite Interval’s opposition to this motion, the court has granted the stay [PDF], and the trial will now await the outcome of the USPTO determinations.
So here we have another case where upon filing a lawsuit, the patents in question get challenged and perhaps, just hopefully, they might be declared invalid and the lawsuit which is hinged on them get tossed out.
In its patent extortion escapades, Microsoft (or Apple) typically goes around suing small companies or mere distributors that have little incentive — unlike Google — to go ahead and invalidate patents — a tedious and expensive process. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.24.11
Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Una mirada a algunos de los últimos grupos de presión en contra de “Linux” y el “Software Libre” a la luz de las noticias y los falsos “consejos” de seudo-”defensores”.
Las tácticas FUD de Microsoft han desarrollado a través del tiempo. Ya no vemos perpetuando mentiras acerca de las capacidades de GNU/Linux (o que es como el “comunismo”). Las nuevas tácticas FUD pintan Linux y Android como faltando el respeto de la ley (la llamada “IP”) y que es “no libre”. El monopolista ha estado contratando grupos de presión y en consecuencia hemos desenmascardado a algunos de estos antes. Algunos de ellos deben revelar sus fuentes de financiamiento con el fin de cumplir con la ley (la publicidad los debilita).
Cualquier experto u otra entidad que promueve la línea de Microsoft, acerca de las patentes pueden ser vistos como un respaldo a los chantajes que Microsoft se ha dedicado [1[http://techrights.org/2007/06/08/shuttleworth-on-racketeering/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/07/17/racketeering-melco-microsoft/], 3[http://techrights.org/2009/12/29/microsoft-extortion-software-patents/], 4[http://techrights.org/2009/07/24/red-hat-on-microsoft-two-face/], 5[http://techrights.org/2009/09/08/staples-employees-anti-linux/], 6[http://techrights.org/2009/07/01/patent-racketeering-myhrvold/], 7[http://techrights.org/2008/02/22/open-for-patents/]], lo que es malo para las relaciones públicas y por el karma. La justificación de lo que Microsoft hace de las patentes es muy difícil, por lo que los expertos a menudo recurren a calumniar a los competidores de Microsoft. Hace unos años nos hemos referido a esta táctica como “igual de malos” troll, donde, básicamente, uno ‘defiende’ lo que Microsoft ha estado haciendo al decir que un competidor como IBM, Google o Apple es tan “malo” por alguna razón especifica (que por lo general no computa).
El año pasado un cabildero salió de la nada promoviendo una empresa que ya es en parte propiedad de Microsoft. Él consiguió algún tipo de acceso especial a documentos con los que calumnió a IBM. Él es lo suficientemente feliz para acusar a las empresas que no son trolls de patentes de “trolls”[http://techrights.org/2011/06/19/manipulating-the-news/], dejando las partes del cártel de Microsoft – Intellectual Ventures (IV)[http://boycottnovell.com/wiki/index.php/Intellectual_Ventures] incluido – intocables, no dijo NADA en contra de ella – No llamar a IV un troll, a pesar de que es el MAS GRANDE TROLL DE PATENTES DEL MUNDO. El nombre de este cabildero – lo has adivinado – es Florian.
En Groklaw, Pamela Jones pregunta, “¿adónde puede ir usted donde estará a salvo de trolls de patentes?”
Ella escribió lo siguiente en relación con Microsoft y trolls de patentes cuando añadió: “Además, el problema es más grande que los trolls de patentes. Recuerde que cuando Microsoft trató de vender las patentes para el uso en contra de Linux a los trolls de patentes? Trolls de patentes por encargo son un problema mucho más grande que sólo los trolls de patentes. Recuerde de dónde saco Lodsys sus patentes y la imagen se vuelve más clara. No es un ecosistema perturbado aquí, y el problema es que las patentes de software no debería haber sido introducidos al medio ambiente. Ahora son todo lo abrumador. La única solución verdadera es el software y las patentes para conseguir un divorcio. Y la única entidad que puede lograrlo es el Congreso”.
Esto fue escrito en relación con una patente de IV que se utiliza en contra de los desarrolladores de iPhone y de Android (pero no los desarrolladores de Windows). También escribió sobre el origen de esta patente en [1[http://techrights.org/2011/06/11/apple-reported-to-bundeskartellamt/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/06/02/lodsys-and-intellectual-ventures/], 3[http://techrights.org/2011/05/18/apple-and-intellectual-ventures/]]. La única cosa buena acerca de las patentes es que no importa lo mucho que se contagian entre sí, los nombres de ellos no cambian, ni tampoco la lista de cambios, de hablar, o el cambio de la “propiedad” (sin embargo, es extraño que la idea de “vender” ideas pueda sonar). Por lo tanto, no es demasiado difícil mostrar a Microsoft en los detalles.
“¿Recuerden cuando Microsoft trató de vender las patentes a los trolls de patentes para su uso en contra de Linux? Trolls de patentes por encargo son un problema mucho más grande que sólo los trolls de patentes. Recuerden de dónde Lodsys sacó sus patentes y la imagen se vuelve aún más clara.”
–Pamela Jones, Groklaw
Basado sobre este tema[http://www.baumlegal.com/trollbusters/], “Lodsys LLC es una filial de Marshall, Texas, de Lodsys Holdings LLC, una LLC de Delaware. Algunos han especulado que el camino conduce a la propiedad de Intellectual Ventures “(sí, no noticias por ahora, por no mencionar que IV utiliza muchas otros projectiles de acuerdo a otros informes, por lo menos un millar de proyectiles, según una fuente).
“Leverage Si usted es amenazado con infracción de patente (y por qué usted debería ignorar FOSSpatents)”, dice el título de un post acerca de Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller] y la mala dirección que le da a los demandados por Lodsys, básicamente les instruye a rendirse y se niega a decirles lo IV es en realidad y dónde nos lleva de nuevo a (Microsoft y Bill Gates, el maximalista patentes[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] que aboga por las patentes incluso sobre los componentes de alimentos básicos de los pobres, por su propio beneficio[http://techrights.org/2010/04/26/monsanto-boosted-by-gates/]). Semi-verdades y malos consejos es lo que tiene que ver con Florian. Como dice el blog post “, Lodsys probablemente AMA el análisis de Florian y sus opiniones. (No tengo ninguna relación o contacto con cualquier persona en Lodsys, Apple, y ya tengo contacto con Florian). Él parece estar haciendo todos los argumentos que apoyan el plan del troll de patentes – usted no puede permitirse el lujo de luchar, ni siquiera lo intentes, los argumentos de los trolls son decentes, simplemente RINDETE y firma la licencia”.
Para citar más:
Hagas lo que hagas, por favor, ignora el consejo de que no son abogados comentaristas (por ejemplo, Florian Müller @fosspatents), ya que puede ser miope y no están capacitados para proporcionar el análisis jurídico complejo y asesoramiento que necesite. (Por ejemplo, de uno de los últimos Florian mensajes sobre las patentes Lodsys, cualquier abogado de patentes debe ser capaz de reconocer que Florian no entiende la ley en materia de infracción de patentes y otros muchos asuntos.)
Por ejemplo, algunos comentaristas (incluyendo Florian Müller @fosspatents) están asesorando a las victimas de los trolls de patentes a RENDIRSE y PAGAR la CUOTA de LICENCIA, Florian aún está diciendo que el contrato de licencia que no se ha hecho público es aceptable para que Ud. lo firme. Es muy dudable la solidez de este consejo, especialmente teniendo en cuenta el artículo anterior en Watchdog IP. Contrariamente a los malos consejos y análisis jurídico presentadas por Florian, hay opciones disponibles para las empresas amenazadas por los trolls de patentes, e incluso si el resultado es un acuerdo de licencia, el análisis jurídico Florian y su asesoramiento no es sólido. (Yo podría escribir un libro blanco que explique por qué el análisis de Florian está en mal estado, pero no tengo el tiempo ahora mismo. Si alguien me pide que realice un análisis más detallado, la pondré en mi lista de tareas.)
Para empezar, en mi opinión, probablemente Lodsys AMA el “análisis” de Florian y opiniones. (No tengo ninguna relación o contacto con cualquier persona en Lodsys, Apple, y ya no contacto con Florian). Él parece estar haciendo todos los argumentos que apoyan el plan del troll de negocio – usted no puede permitirse el lujo de luchar, ni siquiera lo intentes, los argumentos de los trolls son decentes, ríndete y firma la licencia.
[...]
Todo buen negociador (que excluye la IMO Florian) le dirá que no se negocia con uno mismo. Por lo tanto, no tengo ni idea de por qué Florian dice estar apoyando a los desarrolladores de aplicaciones cuando escribe un análisis que intenta desmenuzar sus argumentos aprovechar el potencial y les aconseja a pagar lo que Lodsys está pidiendo. Si alguien fuese realmente el apoyo de los desarrolladores de aplicaciones, podría estar tratando de reforzar los desarrolladores de aplicaciones aprovechar los argumentos (como lo he estado tratando de proporcionar en este blog).
Algunos sitios, evidentemente, caen en ello, porque por lo menos un escritor escribió que el mejor curso “de acción para los desarrolladores de iOS frente a las amenazas de demandas por violación de patentes emitidas por Lodsys a principios de este mes podría ser la de someterse con las solicitudes de licencia, de acuerdo a un investigador de propiedad “intelectual”. Florian Mueller, quien dirige el blog Las patentes de software libre que publicó una profunda FAQ para los desarrolladores interesados la semana pasada, dice que lo que indica una disposición a jugar bonito con Lodsys podría ser mucho menos costosa que la alternativa, en el largo plazo. “Ya hemos impugnado estas FAQ, que es un lobo con piel de oveja. Es una trampa. Por supuesto que huele más a un ejercicio de presión/marketing …
“Más tarde resultó que realmente Florian estaba completamente mal y su consejo fue peor que inútil.”Más tarde resultó que realmente Florian estaba completamente mal y su consejo fue peor que inútil. Que era veneno puro. Como Jones dijo, “fue este consejo de Mueller, el que empezó la historia. Ahora que Apple ha dado un paso en el que todos los abogados pensaron que era inevitable desde el primer día, ¿Qué le parece ese consejo a usted? Es importante para los desarrolladores que están en una situación jurídica particular consultar a un abogado y no escuchar consejos “legales” de los que no está calificados para ofrecerlo “O peor aún -. De un CABILDERO! También aconsejó a las empresas a las que Microsoft y sus representantes demandaron a simplemente RENDIRSE y PAGAR. es exactamente lo que Microsoft necesita. Para que estas piezas de mal consejo se filtren a la prensa, este CABILDERO (no un abogado o un veterano de las patentes, sin embargo, pretende todo el mundo menos sí mismo no está capacitado para hablar sobre el tema), cuya principal habilidad es el envío masivo de correo a periodistas[http://techrights.org/2011/04/16/how-mobbyists-operate/], ha estado trabajando entre bastidores para lograr ser citado. Nos entristece ver que muchas personas piensan que es citado en los artículos debido al mérito y no a su capacidad de cabildeo. Él es un veterano CABILDERO. Él sabe los trucos.
Este hombre parece que ha estado presionando en vano para pintar Google como un agresor de patentes, ya que, según este nuevo informe[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576386010188538374.html], el cabildeo de Microsoft (parte de la línea del partido mismo) fallo en incitar a los reguladores de EE.UU., hasta el punto de bloquear un intento de patentes de Nortel[http://techrights.org/2011/06/14/taxing-competitors-with-moles/].
“De acuerdo con este artículo[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386895,00.asp]“, señala Jones, “Apple tiene miles de patentes, Nokia tiene más de 10.000 “familias” de patentes (patentes mismas en diferentes jurisdicciones), Microsoft cuenta con alrededor de 18.000 patentes, y Google tiene alrededor de 600, en su mayoría relacionados con la búsqueda”, por lo que sobre quien sería Google tiene una ventaja injusta?” Google tiene sus razones para comprar – no tanto solicitar – patentes. Microsoft ha estado atacando a Android de Google (y por extensión Linux) desde muchos ángulos en un intento de gravar impuestos a Google y convertir eso en una mina de oro Mirosoft. Como hemos dicho desde el principio, uno de los siguientes jugadores que pueden demandar o al menos arrancar Android es Nokia, al que más o menos Microsoft conquisto de manera infame[http://techrights.org/2011/04/15/swpats-and-hardware-patents-at-nokia/].
“Empresas moribundas tratan de utilizar las patentes y los derechos de autor. Eso es lo que lo hacen, como hemos visto en la saga de SCO.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawAcerca de la guerra de patentes que se ha estado gestando en el espacio móvil, Jones escribe: “Ha estado ocurriendo por algún tiempo. Empresas moribundas tratan de utilizar las patentes y los derechos de autor. Eso es lo que lo hacen, como hemos visto en la saga de SCO. Ahora Nokia y Microsoft luchan para hacer frente a un mundo que los está dejando de lado. Así que aquí vienen las patentes. Si usted encuentra que nauseabundo, dígale a su Congresscritter. Ellos son los que puede cambiar la ley de patentes.”
Para citar algunos resultados de interés[http://seekingalpha.com/article/274837-nokia-from-predator-to-prey], en caso de “una ruptura, tres unidades de Nokia pueden tener un valor de € 21,9 mil millones, en base a los múltiplos de ventas de sus competidores de este año. El valor de ruptura no puede incluir las patentes de Nokia, que Tero Kuittinen, analista de MKM Partners LP, estima un valor de 5 millones de euros. Lo que llevaría el total a 26,9 millones de euros. Huawei, ZTE Huawei Technologies Co. y ZTE Corp. (ZTCOF.PK) también podrían estar interesado en la compra de activos de Nokia. “[A través de Groklaw]
-
“El valor de ruptura no puede incluir las patentes de Nokia, que Tero Kuittinen, analista de MKM Partners LP, estima un valor de 5 millones de euros.”
–Seeking AlphaHablando de los grupos de presión, recuerdan a los empleados[http://techrights.org/2009/05/21/list-microsoft-and-gates-lobbyists/] de la empresa del padre de Bill Gates “[1[http://techrights.org/2010/01/19/gates-senior-scandal/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/05/17/gates-dad-ballmer-bank-allen-charter/]] y luego miren quien está detrás de Apple[http://techrights.org/2011/05/15/uspto-fail/], según el informe siguiente. Por lo tanto, quien representa a Kodak[http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/06/apple-nokia-settlement-ends-subpoena-fight-for-testimony-from-apples-dc-attorneys.html], de los que previamente escribimos en relación con la dinastía de los Gates [1[http://techrights.org/2009/02/18/gates-foundation-kodak-money/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/03/12/kodak-mono-novell-moonlight/]]? La respuesta:
Pickard y su compañero abogado David Cornwell están representndo a la empresa contra la orden de comparecencia de Kodak, Pickard se negó a comentar. K & L Gates representa a Kodak en el caso de Nueva York. Kodak Gerard Meuchner portavoz confirmó que la empresa también se encargará de los litigios en Washington.
Curiosamente, el New York Times ha publicado este artículo[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat4.html] sobre la desaparición de Microsoft en comparación con la de Kodak (ambos recurrieron al uso de las patentes cuando sus productos ya no son convenientes o necesarios):
La tecnología da un vuelco empresas de diferentes maneras. Permite a las empresas nuevas para ofrecer mejores productos y servicios de una manera más eficiente, sino que también crea nuevos bienes y servicios para que los consumidores quieren. Eastman Kodak, la quinta empresa más grande en el S & P 500 en 1975, fue casi destruida por las cámaras digitales y ya no está en el índice. General Motors, ocupo el quinto lugar en 1985, fue obstaculizado por los rivales que podría hacer más vehículos de bajo consumo. Microsoft aún domina el escritorio del PC. Pero que importa cada vez menos como los usuarios a migran a las tabletas y más de computación se lleva a cabo en “la nube”.
Hay otra lección de largo tobogán de Microsoft. Se trata de hasta qué punto gigantes corporativos van a atacar la tecnología que pone en peligro su dominio. Hace diez años, Microsoft trató de usar su monopolio virtual del sistema operativo para estrangular a sus rivales potenciales y sus nuevas tecnologías. Afortunadamente, no pudo. Pero los nuevos gigantes probablemente tratarán tácticas similares contra cualquier nuevo gizmo que los desafíe.
Como los chacales de Microsoft notan[http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/06/will-microsoft-follow-kodaks-lead.html], El New York Times tuvo este fin de semana un editorial comparando el estado actual de Microsoft con la difícil situación de Eastman Kodak.”
Kodak también es un agresor de patentes como vimos en las entradas más antiguas. Curiosamente, en un momento Kodak se quejó del cómplice de Gates[http://techrights.org/2010/03/19/intellectual-ventures-vs-kodak-by-proxy/], Intelectual Ventures. Supongo que en realidad no cabildero se atreve a criticar? En su lugar, trata de atribuir sus actos a Google. Afirmaciones sorprendentes, no busque más, Florian de esos pedacitos de humor disfrazado de graves acusaciones. Si es malo para el Software Libre debido a las patentes, entonces es bueno para el “señor” FOSSpatents. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.22.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 6:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Captain patents
Summary: How the proprietary software cartel continues to harm adoption of GNU/Linux, mostly by aligning against Google
SHARING CULTURE is under attack. The companies that thrive in artificial scarcity just cling on to a retarded state of affairs. In a lawsuit that was mentioned here twice before [1, 2] (and also noted in Reader’s Picks earlier today), Redmond attacks BitTorrent using software patents. Prof. Webbink’s Groklaw has a more in-depth analysis of the case, starting with: “Peer-to-peer provider BitTorrent is somewhat familiar with being at the center of copyright controversies, but last Tuesday, June 14, it entered the realm of patent disputes when it was sued by Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for infringement of Tranz-Send’s U.S. patent number 7,301,944 (the ’944 patent). The ’944 patent, entitled “Media File Distribution With Adaptive Transmission Protocols,” was filed on April 16, 1999, and issued November 27, 2007.”
More interestingly, however, Groklaw has begun addressing the Google case again, in light of reexamination attempts. Watch what Google is doing to basically jeopardise software patents again (not for the first time):
Oracle has experienced another setback in its assertion of its patents against Google. In the reexamination of U.S. Patent 6192476 the USPTO has issued an office action in which it rejects 17 of the patent’s 21 claims. The specifics of the office action are set forth below in text form along with an updated reexamination history. While Oracle has asserted seven different patents in its claims against Google, if this reexamination is exemplary of what Oracle can expect in each of the other reexaminations, Oracle will have a hard time finding claims that it can successfully assert against Google, and there lies Oracles conundrum. Oracle either has to agree with the court’s directive to limit the number of claims it will assert at trial, or it is likely the court will simply stay the trial until the reexaminations are complete.
The above case, being a case against Linux, is something that Microsoft Florian promotes passionately, even with his old friend Dana Blankenhorn, who still offers a platform to Florian’s lies and distortions. Does the bias not tell everyone who Florian’s latest client is aligned with? Remember that this guy is a lobbyist. He has been doing this for selected clients for quite a few years now. He is still working to shoot down Google’s acquisition of Nortel’s patents (for defensive purposes) and now we see that Apple too — not just Microsoft — is standing in Google’s way.
Nortel Networks Inc. has received significant level of interest in patents that can be used for smartphone technology. Accordingly, it postponed an action sanctioned by a bankruptcy court in the United States from June 20 to June 27, at 9:00 a.m.
Remember that Apple has two ongoing lawsuits against Android, one against HTC and one against Samsung. Oracle, Microsoft, and Apple are all patent aggressors; Google is not. Whereas the former 3 snatched Novell’s patents, Google has so far attempted to even crush software patents as a whole. So whose side should a Free software supporter take? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.21.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Marketing, Novell, OpenSUSE at 2:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Novell is circling down the drain
Summary: The degradation of the entity once known as Novell following the Microsoft-assisted buyout (euthanasia) which left the patents in Microsoft’s coffers and the OpenSUSE volunteers rather aimless, disinterested even
TECHRIGHTS spent entire years covering Novell and upon the company’s demise we continue to track its last days (pre- and post-acquisition). In recent posts we noted that managers and PR people had vanished from Novell and the OpenSUSE community lacked the level of activity it once boasted. Over the past week we have observed more of the same trends and this post is a short summary of evidence.
“In recent posts we noted that managers and PR people had vanished from Novell and the OpenSUSE community lacked the level of activity it once boasted.”Novell in Poland (Novell w Polsce) is the only source of new Novell videos [1, 2] and the only PR blogger left (there used to be a handful) is pushing proprietary software (SUSE-washed though) while a Novell-oriented site emits a couple more [1, 2].
As in prior weeks, with the exception of weekly news (from Sascha Manns in his blog and elsewhere), it is hard to see much evidence of progress on the Free/open source side of things, namely OpenSUSE. SUSE bloggers move to other places and some resort to less activity due to new jobs. To quote this one new example:
Nevertheless, Yast has fallen behind on design. The program is powerful and versatile. But there could be some improvements made in organization and space-use customization.
There is still a lot of stuff from Greece in the Planet and the blog, e.g. this post. There is some support and funding from other companies — that which is able to keep some progress going. Google Summer of Code, as we noted before, helps fund some projects that are beneficial to OpenSUSE [1, 2]. For Google it is a good investment for PR reasons and also for advancement of the Free software commonwealth that Google’s largely proprietary empire is built upon. Google is mostly a ‘cloud’ (or Fog Computing) company and the hype around this buzzword does not escape OpenSUSE, either. But just riding the Wave [pung intended] won’t save it. Attachmate is not genuinely interested in helping Free software. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.20.11
Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 10:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at some of the latest lobbying against “Linux” and “FOSS” in light of the news and bogus ‘advice’ from pretenders
Microsoft’s FUD tactics have evolved. No longer must we see lies perpetuated about the capabilities of GNU/Linux (or that it’s like “communism”). The new FUD tactics paint Linux and Android as disrespectful of the law (so-called ‘IP’) and “not free”. The monopolist has been hiring lobbyists accordingly and we named some of these before. Few of them must disclose their funding sources in order to comply with the law (disclosure weakens them).
Any pundit or other entity which promotes Microsoft’s party line on patents can be seen as endorsing the blackmail Microsoft has been engaging in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]; it’s bad for PR and for one’s karma. Justifying what Microsoft does with patents is extremely hard, so such pundits often turn to daemonising Microsoft’s competitors. A few years ago we referred to this tactic as the “equally evil” troll, where basically one ‘defends’ what Microsoft has been doing by saying that a competitor like IBM, Google, or Apple is just as “evil” for some specified reason (which usually does not compute).
Last year a lobbyist came out of the woodwork promoting a company now partly owned by Microsoft. He got some special access to documents with which he daemonised IBM. He is happy enough to accuse companies that are not patent trolls of being "trolls" while leaving parts of the Microsoft cartel — Intellectual Ventures (IV) included — unaddressed. He not calling IV a troll, even though it is the world’s biggest patent troll. The name of this lobbyist — you’ve guessed it — is Florian.
At Groklaw, Pamela Jones asks, “where can you go where you will be safe from patent trolls?”
She wrote this in relation to Microsoft and patent trolls when she added: “Plus the problem is bigger than patent trolls. Remember when Microsoft tried to sell patents to use against Linux to patent trolls? So proxy patent trolls are a much bigger problem than just patent trolls. Remember where Lodsys got its patents from and the picture gets clearer. There is a disturbed ecosystem here, and the problem is that software patents should never have been introduced into the environment. Now they are overwhelming everything. The only true solution is for software and patents to get a divorce. And the only entity that can accomplish that is Congress.”
This was written in relation to a patent from IV being used against iPhone and Android developers (but no Windows developers). We also wrote about the origin of this patent in [1, 2, 3]. The only good thing about patents is that no matter how much they are passed around, the names on them do not change; neither does the changelog, to speak, or the change of ‘ownership’ (however bizarre the notion of ‘selling’ ideas may sound). So, it’s not too hard to show Microsoft in the details.
“Remember when Microsoft tried to sell patents to use against Linux to patent trolls? So proxy patent trolls are a much bigger problem than just patent trolls. Remember where Lodsys got its patents from and the picture gets clearer.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawBased on this item, “Lodsys LLC is a Marshall, Texas-based subsidiary of Lodsys Holdings LLC, a Delaware LLC. Some have speculated that the ownership trail leads to Intellectual Ventures” (yes, not news by now, not to mention that IV uses many other shells according to other reports, at least a thousand shells according to one source).
“Leverage If You Are Threatened with Patent Infringement (and why you should ignore FOSSpatents)” says the headline of a post about Microsoft Florian and the misdirection he gives to those sued by Lodsys; basically he instructs them to surrender and he neglects to tell them what IV really is and where it leads back to (Microsoft and Bill Gates, the patents maximalist who lobbies for patents even on poor people's basic food ingredients, for his own profit). Semi-truths and ill advice is what Florian is all about. As the blog post states, “Lodsys probably LOVES Florian’s analysis and opinions. (I have no connection or contact with anyone at Lodsys, Apple, and no longer any contact with Florian). He seems to be making all the arguments that support the troll’s business plan – you can’t afford to fight, don’t even try, the trolls arguments are decent, just give in and sign the license.”
To quote more:
Whatever you do, please ignore the advice of non-attorney commentators (such as Florian Muller @ fosspatents) because they can be shortsighted and are not qualified to provide the complex legal analysis and advice you will need. (e.g. from one of Florian’s latest posts about the Lodsys patents, any patent attorney should be able to recognize that Florian does not understand the law regarding patent infringement and numerous other issues.)
For example, some commentators (including Florian Muller @ fosspatents) are advising targets of patent trolls to roll over and pay the license fee; Florian is even advising you that the license agreement that has not been made public is acceptable for you to sign. I very much question the soundness of this advice, especially considering the above article at IP Watchdog. Contrary to the bad advice and legal analysis put forth by Florian, there are options available to companies threatened by patent trolls and even if the outcome is a license agreement, Florian’s legal analysis and advice is not solid. (I could write a white paper explaining why Florian’s analysis is messed up, but I don’t have the time right now. If anyone requests me to provide more detailed analysis, I will put it on my to-do list.)
For starters, in my opinion, Lodsys probably LOVES Florian’s analysis and opinions. (I have no connection or contact with anyone at Lodsys, Apple, and no longer any contact with Florian). He seems to be making all the arguments that support the troll’s business plan – you can’t afford to fight, don’t even try, the trolls arguments are decent, just give in and sign the license.
[...]
Any good negotiator (which IMO excludes Florian) will tell you that you do not negotiate with yourself. Thus, I have no idea why Florian claims to be supporting application developers when he writes analysis that attempts to shred their potential leverage arguments and advises them to pay what Lodsys is asking. If someone was truly supporting the application developers, they would be trying to bolster the application developers leverage arguments (as I have been trying to provide on this blog).
Some sites evidently fall for it because at least one writer wrote that the “best course of action for iOS developers faced with patent infringement suit threats issued by patent holding firm Lodsys earlier this month might be to play nice with licensing requests, according to one intellectual property researcher. Florian Mueller, who runs the FOSS Patents blog that posted an in-depth FAQ for concerned developers last week, says that indicating a willingness to play nice with Lodsys could be far less costly than the alternative, in the long run.” We have already challenged this FAQ, which is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a trap. Smells more like a lobbying/marketing exercise…
“Later on it turned out that Florian was indeed wrong and his advice was worse than useless.”
Later on it turned out that Florian was indeed wrong and his advice was worse than useless. It was pure poison. As Jones put it, “this was Mueller’s advice when the story began. Now that Apple has stepped in, which every lawyer I know thought was inevitable from day one, how does that advice look to you? It’s important for developers in a particular legal situation to have a lawyer and not to listen to “legal” advice from those not qualified to offer it.” Or worse — from a lobbyist! He also advised companies which Microsoft and its proxies sued to just surrender and pay up. it’s exactly what Microsoft needs. In order for these pieces of bad advice to make it into the press, this lobbyist (not a lawyer or a patents veteran, yet he pretends everyone but himself is not qualified t speak on the subject), whose main skill is mass-mailing journalists, has been working behind the scenes to get himself quoted. We are saddened to see that many people think he is quoted in articles due to merit as opposed to his lobbying skills. He is a veteran lobbyist. He knows the tricks.
This man seems to have been lobbying in vain to paint Google as a patent aggressor because, according to this new report, Microsoft’s lobbying (part of the same party line) failed to incite US regulators to the point of blocking a bid for Nortel's patents.
“According to this article,” notes Jones, “Apple has thousands of patents, Nokia has more than 10,000 patent ‘families’ (same patents, different jurisdictions), Microsoft has around 18,000 patents, and Google has about 600, mostly search-related”, so over whom would Google have an unfair advantage?” Google has its reasons for buying — not so much applying for — patents. Microsoft has been attacking Google’s Android (and by extension Linux) from many angles in an attempt to tax Google’s work and turn that into a Mirosoft cash cow. As we have argued all along, one of the next players that may sue or at least extort Android is Nokia, which Microsoft pretty much conquered in nefarious ways.
“Dying companies try to use patents and copyrights. That’s who does it, as we saw in SCO’s saga.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawAbout the patent war that has been brewing in the mobile space, Jones writes: “It’s been going on for a while. Dying companies try to use patents and copyrights. That’s who does it, as we saw in SCO’s saga. Now it’s Nokia and Microsoft struggling to deal with a world that is passing them by. So out come the patents. If you find that nauseating, tell your Congresscritter. That’s who can change patent law.”
To quote some findings of interest, in case of “a breakup, Nokia’s three units may be worth about 21.9 billion euros, based on the sales multiples of its competitors this year. The breakup value may not include Nokia’s patents, which Tero Kuittinen, an analyst with MKM Partners LP, estimates are worth 5 billion euros. That would bring the total to 26.9 billion euros. Huawei, ZTE Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. (ZTCOF.PK) may also be interested in buying Nokia’s assets.” [via Groklaw]
“The breakup value may not include Nokia’s patents, which Tero Kuittinen, an analyst with MKM Partners LP, estimates are worth 5 billion euros.”
–Seeking AlphaSpeaking of lobbyists, recall those employed by the company of Bill Gates’ father [1, 2] and then watch who is going after Apple according to the following report. So, who represents Kodak, which we previously wrote about in relation to the Gates dynasty [1, 2]? Answer:
Pickard and fellow Sterne Kessler attorney David Cornwell are representing the firm against Kodak’s subpoena; Pickard declined to comment. K&L Gates is representing Kodak in the New York case. Kodak spokesman Gerard Meuchner confirmed that the firm will also handle the litigation in Washington.
Interestingly enough, the new York Times has published this piece about the demise of Microsoft as compared to Kodak’s (both resorted to using patents as their products are no longer desirable or necessary):
Technology upends companies in different ways. It allows new firms to deliver better products and services in a more efficient way; it also creates new goods and services for consumers to want. Eastman Kodak, the fifth-biggest company in the S.& P. 500 in 1975, was almost destroyed by digital cameras and is no longer in the index. General Motors, fifth biggest in 1985, was hobbled by rivals that could make more fuel efficient cars. Microsoft still rules the PC desktop. But that will matter less and less as users migrate to tablets and more computing takes place in “the cloud.”
There is another lesson in Microsoft’s long slide. It is about how far corporate behemoths will go to stop technology that threatens their dominance. Ten years ago, Microsoft tried to use its virtual monopoly of the operating system to strangle potential rivals and their new technologies. Fortunately, it failed. But the new rising behemoths will likely try similar tactics on whatever new gizmo challenges them.
As the Microsoft boosters note, “The New York Times this weekend had an editorial comparing the current state of Microsoft with the plight of Eastman Kodak.”
Kodak too is a patent aggressor as we showed in older posts. Curiously, at one point Kodak complained about Gates' accomplice at Intellectual Ventures. Guess which lobbyist dare not really criticise it? Instead, he tries to attribute its deeds to Google. Astonishing claims; look no further than Florian for those bits of humour disguised as serious allegations. If it’s bad for FOSS due to patents, then it’s good for Mr. FOSSpatents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.19.11
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Florian Müller is spinning and manipulating the news again, also by calling patent “trolls” those who are not (while supporting Microsoft’s stance)
SOME of the attacks on Linux are being magnified by those whose agenda is clearly Linux-hostile. Let’s put things in perspective.
Apple has been suing Linux/Android companies since about a year ago and its latest target is Samsung, which already pays Microsoft for Linux (since 2007). Various reports indicate that Apple is increasing the volume of patent ammunition with more and more patents [1, 2]. This includes “Method of tethering a mobile phone to a PC to share a data connection”. It is said that “more products [are] included” now that the complaint is modified to apply increased pressure against Linux/Android. Suffice to say, Microsoft Florian is still distorting and lying, which is basically what lobbyists are hired to do. Well, the president of the FFII explains to him that “[c]ounter-suing for when you are attacked is not trolling.”
“This lobbyist is lobbying against Google and for Microsoft’s interests, so he has already lost credibility among those who know better.”For those who missed what we wrote last week, Microsoft Florian pushes for coverage of the Nokia-Apple agreement as something which vilifies Android rather than Microsoft and the company it abducted, Nokia. In the coverage of this case we occasionally see him injecting his presence in the usual way, probably by mass-mailing journalists again. This is how he (t)rolls.
Speaking of Nokia, Nokia’s Symbian patent proved that the company gradually becomes a troll in the UK, but fortunately this does not go as far as a 3G patent after a High Court ruling in the UK. Expect Florian to play ball for Nokia now that it serves Microsoft agenda.
While it is true that Nokia might go after Android next, it is premature to use this as ‘dirt’ and also daemonise Google — not Nokia/Microsoft — for it. But that is what Microsoft Florian has done over the past week, banging on about this and quoting Microsoft folks like Bott (also chatting with Sam Ramji and Microsoft Jack). Microsoft Florian pushes for coverage of whatever is bad for Linux. If something does not refer to Linux, then Mr. “FOSSpatents” will find some way to spin it against FOSS. He is apologising for Microsoft and also turning the Nokia deal with Apple into an amusing case against Linux, as always, which is really his agenda right from the start (when his lobbying started over a year ago, without naming the client/s but promoting TurboHercules, a partly Microsoft-owned company that sent him documents). This lobbyist is lobbying against Google and for Microsoft’s interests, so he has already lost credibility among those who know better. Tweets like this one leave little room for doubt, even though he softened following the ousting of anti-Google AstroTurfers (hired by the partly Microsoft-owned Facebook).
The funny thing is, even those who once collaborated with Florian have mostly turned against him as they clarify that “Skyhook seeks to enforce its soft patent, so they can be called a patent troll. Google is not trolling yet. Microsoft is.” This was said in reference to patent trolls attacking Google over Android, Skyhook in the case (previously covered here).
As we showed before, many of the patent trolls which attack Android have some Microsoft connections. Microsoft has also been lobbying against the Nortel patents going to Google for defensive purposes. Not only trolls are attacking (trolls cannot be counter-sued as they have no products). It’s also Microsoft and Oracle, which seeks damages as follows:
-
Oracle Corp. (ORCL) is seeking as much as $6.1 billion in damages in a patent- and copyright-infringement lawsuit against Google Inc. that claims the search-engine company’s Android software uses technology related to the Java programming language, according to court papers.
The extent of the claims was disclosed yesterday in San Francisco federal court by Oracle, as it sought to prevent Google from filing under seal documents in the case stating Oracle’s monetary claims.
-
-
-
-
-
The company’s damage claims are backed by Oracle expert testimony, but according to Oracle’s court filing, Google opposed the testimony, claiming that it included “all Google advertising revenue from all Android devices and all harm from fragmentation of Java” and that it argued Google should pay Oracle a 50 per cent royalty rate on Android devices.
Some of the above is being pushed the lobbyist, who keeps predicting doom and gloom for Android even though it’s growing. █
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