01.06.12
Posted in Apple, Europe, GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 7:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Linux proponents unite against proprietary aggressors
Summary: A roundup of patent news about Android/Linux and some of the latest events that relate to it
THE decline of Windows Mobile and all of its other identities (Microsoft keeps Sevenwashing it) has been so rapid that Windows is now a 1% player in a market that keeps growing and growing.
“Windows Phone reaps what it sows” says one journalist who explains it as follows:
Misunderstood, mocked by its competitors, blocked from the market, and little used by the average user.
Ten years ago, this would have been a harsh but fair description of Linux. Today, however, it’s seems perfectly apt to use these labels to describe a completely different bit of technology: the Windows Phone operating system.
Even Nokia cannot save Windows (on mobile phones), so all that Microsoft can do now is become a leech through patents, e.g. via MOSAID and its patent extortion operations (notably Android “licensing”). In this age of many lawsuits that we find in the news all the time we realise that this problem is systemic too. After all, Apple too uses a similar strategy.
Looking at the USPTO for a moment, Matt Asay notes that:
2011: new record in patent grants, tied to Obama’s PTO chief not increased filings zite.to/y1nABx <Cue Talking Heads “Road to Nowhere”
Glyn Moody’s remark on the same report is sarcastic:
because what the world needs is lots more intellectual monopolies
James Love (of KEI) says:
During patent reform legislation, WH claimed low quality patents are problems. But USPTO just issued a record number.
The FFII asks James: “How do they measure patent quality in the US?”
Here is the report they all link to. It’s from a pro-patents circle, known to many as Patently-O (Dennis D. Crouch), and it says:
The USPTO issued more utility patents in calendar year 2011 than in any year in history. The 2011 total – just shy of 225,000 issued patents – is only a small increase over 2010, but towers above all other historic figures. The previous record was set in 2006 with about 173,000 issued utility patents. The dramatic rise in issuance rate is not tied directly to an increase in filings (although there has been a small increase in new application filings). Rather, the two-year increase appears to be the result of regime changes instituted by USPTO Director David Kappos who took office mid-year 2009 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.
the USPTO is a bubble and a sham. The sooner people realise this, the sooner it will be toppled. It serves a conspiracy of monopolies, parasites, and patent lawyers who drive up the price of everything and deny the entry of new competition into the market.
When in the news we see searching as a patent and even business methods as a monopoly we cannot help feeling that one productive response would be to expose the system, not just pertinent companies that exploit it to the extremes and harm Free software more than anything else. The USPTO is very dangerous at all levels because there are lobbyists who use the “USPTO model” to expand this same model to other countries. This include the UK-IPO that we have here in England. As one person puts it, “All in the American mind? US and UK take different approaches to assessing mental act exclusions”; if the unitary patent is passed through, the US may have the whole EU (EPO) assimilate to the USPTO. Already, some software patents are being approved in the UK. This is a new example from the news:
Image processing software not excluded from patentability, IPO rules
An IPO examiner had previously ruled that the invention was excluded from patentability on the grounds that the invention consisted solely of a computer program. Hewlett Packard, the company trying to patent the invention, appealed against the examiner’s ruling and the hearing officer has now upheld that appeal on the basis that the invention uses mathematical techniques that are sufficiently technical in nature to avoid being excluded from patentability.
Under the UK’s Patents Act inventions must be new, take an inventive step that is not obvious and be useful to industry in order to qualify for patent protection. An invention cannot be patented, according to the Act, if it is “a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer … as such”.
Henrion from the FFII writes that:
The problem with the patent system at the moment is that it’s being applied to intangibles: software and user interfaces
Here is one new example of it:
Lakeside Software, a leader in business intelligence solutions for IT professionals, today announced that the company has expanded its patent portfolio with the granting of a patent for the management of data across multiple computer systems.
Data too has patents on it now? How far will this go? And how abstract a computation is going to be deemed patentable? Oracle pushed copyrights and patents to the edge when it suggested that APIs too can be patented, which they probably can in the US.
We already know that the age of bankruptcy is an age of patent wars and Sun’s sale to Oracle had its “defensive” parents turn into hostile. Novell’s patents were sold to Microsoft and Apple, too (both companies are FOSS-hostile and litigate against Linux/Android). Here is the new story of another company that ran to the courtroom amid its demise: “The newspaper quoted unidentified people as saing Kodak could seek protection in the next few weeks if an effort to sell a collection of digital-imaging patents falls through.
“Kodak has sold patents valued at millions of dollars over the last several years in a bid to shore up its ailing finances.”
It’s actually a strong case against patents because companies become just a pile of orphaned patents (Novell included), and in turn this fuels wars, not sparking any innovation at all. Disregard the pro-patents propaganda from lawyers’ Web sites and instead watch why they like patents (starting 2012 with patent lawsuits). As one columnist in IDG put it:
When Netscape went public in the fall of 1995, few of us understood that we were entering an era of constant and accelerating change. Since then, 16 years of Moore’s Law has given us powerful and cheap hardware. The open-source software movement has made software that’s worth millions of dollars freely available to anyone who can click a mouse. As one can see, reducing these natural barriers to entry has made it easier to start a Web services business. These same trends have had an interesting effect on intellectual property strategy.
[...]
Open hostility toward patents from the open-source community and 10 years of judicial infighting over the patentability of “business methods” and other Web 2.0 technologies didn’t help matters. Many Web 2.0 companies underinvested in patents, when they should have increased their efforts to secure legal barriers to entry to offset the reduction in natural barriers to entry.
Actually, patents do not work for small players. That’s just the lie sold to us by the 1% (or less) who benefit from patents. Here is some more London-based propaganda dressed up as a press release:
The Decision Model is revolutionising Enterprise Decision Management by modeling the business logic (rules) behind key operational and strategic business decisions (http://www.azinta.com/Services/the-decision-model-solutions.html). The recent award of a US patent for The Decision Model to Knowledge Partners International (KPI) triggered an intense debate resulting in some commentators claiming that The Decision Model patent is an IP trap. Suleiman Shehu, the CEO of Azinta Systems – a KPI Consulting Partner, analyses the reasons for this debate and presents the evidence why The Decision Model patent is not an IP trap.
Decision-making as a patent. How about that, ladies and gents?
Moving back to the impact on FOSS, although Apple gets sued for patent violations, the company persists with its support for that same rotten system. “Last week,” says one article, “Apple applied to the US patent office to register facial recognition software…”
This affects me personally and professionally, too. “So instead of sliding to unlock the iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch, one could simply point it at one’s face,” notes this article, among others that we mentioned in December. The point they are missing is that Apple gets a monopoly here. It is not good for anyone. Microsoft’s identity change to “patent aggressor” is on route as well [1, 2] (software patents). They are goodwill-washing it through gullible Web sites. With phrases like “patent helps”, there is clearly not a realistic expectation. And in the face of infographic propaganda from taxmen of technology (lawyers) we fortunately see some infographic sanity and we are able to see to what degree Android is the victim here (victim of Microsoft, Apple, and some of their allies). Google does not get patents anymore; in fact, “Google stopped submitting patents to the USPTO” because it’s pointless. To quote: “Software patent wars have always existed: companies fought them (or paid up), sometimes quietly, sometimes making a big fuss. However, something has changed over the last year or so: people started getting directly affected by software patents (ask anybody wanting a Samsung Galaxy Tab in Australia for Christmas 2011…). Lately, two things came to my attention: Google acquired 200 patents from IBM. But, more interestingly: Google hasn’t filed any patents over the last several months.”
Google does not apply for patents; it buys/gets them instead, usually from IBM [1, 2, 3, 4] under secret terms. An article for background can be found here:
Last year, IBM sold Google 2,000 or so patents ranging from mobile software to computer hardware and processors.
As other reports put it:
Google’s quest to build a strong patent portfolio continues with IBM assigning a further 222 patents to the search and advertising company. Details of the transaction have not been disclosed by either party, but the USPTO database shows the patents being transferred on 30 December 2011. This is not the first time Google has acquired IBM patents; over one thousand IBM patents were transferred to Google in both July and September 2011.
Some say that IBM is trying to defend Linux/Android in this case. “A trial date has been set in Oracle v. Google, or more accurately, an earliest trial date has been set,” writes Mark Webbink, who remarks on this bit of news:
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)–Google Inc. (GOOG) and Oracle Corp. (ORCL) have been scheduled to go to trial over an intellectual-property dispute related to Google’s mobile phone software in March, a development that could start to draw the lengthy spat between technology giants to a close.
There is a theory that Google’s new patents from IBM are capable of helping in this case (IBM is an Oracle competitor), but as the FFII points out, “Arms trading is a sustainable business but still mere economic efficiency waste.”
We shall assume that IBM’s interests in this case are in alignment with Linux interests. As we explained some days ago, there is apparently also an Android lawsuit (if not several) brewing against Microsoft and Apple. It’s getting rather interesting. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.04.12
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google at 4:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple alienates Apple fans, gets sued in the process
Apple is being accused of starving French reseller of hot stock, according to The Register. There is even a lawsuit as the “iPhone maker hauled into court over throttled supplies… Apple squeezed supplies to a top reseller and used its own retail stores to gain an unfair competitive advantage, claims a French shop chain that is taking Apple to court in Paris.”
To quote further, “eBizcuss, the largest reseller in France, said that Apple favoured its own stores over theirs when it shipped out new and hotly demanded trendy tech gear.
“A throttling of Apple deliveries, particularly reduced shipments of the iPad 2 and Macbook Air, cost the store a 30 per cent fall in revenue in quarter three this year, eBizcuss CEO Francois Prudent told Le Figaro (English report). Apple’s own retail outlets continued to receive stock. More recently the reseller, which has 16 locations across France, was unable to get any stock of the iPhone 4S.
“This was despite eBizcuss spending $6.5 million bringing its point-of-sale system up to the standard that Apple requested. Apple was also unfairly undercutting their distribution partners on price, alleges Prudent, with Apple offering corporate customers prices lower than they were giving to the reseller shops.” (source)
“As one commenter put it,” says Homer, “they shouldn’t get into bed with a company like Apple then expect not to get shafted. They also shouldn’t put so many of their eggs in one basket, such that when they do get shafted, they don’t have anything to fall back on. A quick look at their Website (iclg.com), suggests they’re pretty much an Apple closed-shop. Idiots. Maybe if they tried something else, like say that line of smartphones that has greater than 50% of the market (what’s it called again?) they wouldn’t have been shafted and/or could’ve told Apple to go screw itself.
“The CEO was probably a dazed Apple fanboy. I bet he isn’t now though.”
In other news, Apple is being sued by users too:
Apple Sued By Users In America
Apple is facing legal trouble at the home turf. Apple users are saying that the company hid the fact that they will be locked into AT&T service and will be blocked access to third-party application downloads.
According to Courthouse News Service, “The four lead plaintiffs say they bought iPhones when they were first released in 2007, but they did not know that Apple had a secret five-year exclusivity agreement with AT&T that would prevent them from switching carriers.”
Maybe they should turn to Android/Linux. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.02.12
Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Patents at 12:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Lawsuits dance
Summary: News about patents with emphasis on the duopoly’s fight against Android/Linux
THE disdain for patents is growing much greater partly owing to the cases against Linux/Android.
To start with the good news, Oracle’s setback is now in the press, not just FOSS/technology sites. To quote:
Oracle’s Patent Claims Against Google Get Rejected
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected several patent claims being brought against Google by Oracle last week. Oracle (NASDAQ:ORCL) sued Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) last year claiming that Google owed it $6 billion for parts of Java software that were used in the Android operating system. Oracle initially claimed 132 infringements against seven total patents, but upon the judge’s request, the company has whittled down the list to just 50 complaints.
Here is the bigger piece of good news that we found today. Microsoft and Apple might soon be sued by Android makers to deter against those lawsuits that the duopoly launched:
According to Digitimes “A number of handset makers in China, including Lenovo, ZTE, TCL, Coolpad and Konka, has formed an alliance in preparation to counter possible patent infringement lawsuits to bring upon by international players, according to industry sources in Taiwan.”
It’s time for Android manufacturers to come together and create an alliance to fight Microsoft and Apple’s patents attack. If an alliance is formed it will bring an end to the new strategy of Apple and Microsoft — “why innovate when you can litigate.”
Here is another good new article:
Don’t mess with these tech giants or they’ll drag you to court! Apple and Microsoft have made it clear they will not tolerate any infringing of their patents. Both software companies have been awarded legal victories in separate court cases involving violation of their respected patents. Interestingly, both suits indirectly targeted the search engine giant Google.
Over at Wired, 2011 is proclaimed to have been a bad year:
2011: The Year Intellectual Property Trumped Civil Liberties
Online civil liberties groups were thrilled in May when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the head of the powerful Judiciary Committee, announced legislation requiring the government, for the first time, to get a probable-cause warrant to obtain Americans’ e-mail and other content stored in the cloud.
But, despite the backing of a coalition of powerful tech companies, the bill to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was dead on arrival, never even getting a hearing before the committee Leahy heads.
In contrast, another proposal sailed through Leahy’s committee, less than two weeks after Leahy and others floated it at about the same time as his ECPA reform measure. That bill, known as the Protect IP Act, was anti-piracy legislation long sought by Hollywood that dramatically increased the government’s legal power to disrupt and shutter websites “dedicated to infringing activities.”
Apple is meaning accumulating more patents [1, 2, 3] on features that were implemented before by others while in the Indian press we learn that the patent question returns:
Erosion of privacy and personal freedom on online media drew worried mention at the just-concluded Fourth International FOSS (free and open source software) Conference-Kerala here (FOSSK4).
The declaration adopted at the end of the three-day conference called for appropriate legal measures to address increasing instances of this menace.
It also asserted the importance of FOSS in stimulating individual, collective and social creativity in a variety of domains ranging from culture, and the arts to music and digital content.
It voted with its feet for rejection of software patents as these tended to stifle innovation in software.
We wrote a lot about software patents in India quite a lot a few years ago when the issue was debated at a legislative arena.
The Irish press notes that patent lawsuits are “back in fashion”:
LITIGATION IS nothing new as a business tool – even the ancient Greeks had laws protecting trademarks.
But by any measurement, 2011 was an extraordinary year in terms of technology companies resorting to legal fisticuffs, particularly within one narrow sector: smartphones and tablet computers such as the iPad and Samsung Galaxy (which run on similar operating systems).
As in any brawl, usually just a few pugnacious characters start it. In this case, it has been Apple and Google aiming punches in disputes about patents involving Apple’s iPhone and iPad software, and Google’s open source Android operating system, which has found a home in an ever increasing range of mobile handsets and tablets in a market that Apple long dominated.
The British press says that Apple’s strategy against Linux/Android is not successful:
Jobs’ ‘nuclear war’ is not doing Apple any good – analyst
Apple’s patent wars will start to hurt shareholders if Apple continues to pursue its lawsuits against Samsung, HTC and Motorola, an analyst has said.
Kevin Rivette, a managing partner at 3LP Advisors LLC, told Bloomberg that even if Apple won its patent battles, it was playing a losing game. Legal fees aside, the “thermonuclear war” that Jobs launched against the Android manufacturers in a fit of rage circa 2009 isn’t stamping out Cupertino’s competition but the hostility engendered could stop Apple from getting access to new technology it needs.
Here at Techrights we made a call to boycott Apple until it stops suing like mad. We got some press for it, such as this:
Anti-patent group Techrights has called for a boycott of Apple products with the aim to get the fruity firm to drop its legal attack against both Linux and Android.
The organisation says that “The cult of Mr. Jobs loves to pretend that it invented the smartphones, CrunchPad-like tablets, and all things shiny.” This would be ok in some ways, but Apple of course has to act on these feelings, leading to attempts to not only sue organisations it sees as infringing, but to embargo as well.
The original post suggesting that Techrights boycott Apple products for the forseeable future, went on to say that this was an incredibly ballsy strategy for a company that “built itself on knockoffs.”
There was also coverage in other languages. SJVN writes about this status quo where competition becomes more about lawsuits and less about production. The corporate press carries on with “IP” propaganda and puts the issue among the top ten for last year.
A summary of 2011 controversies has this one listed:
Back in 2007, Microsoft first alleged that open source software infringes on at least 235 Microsoft patents. That allegation led to multiple companies including Novell (and now SUSE) signing patent deals with Microsoft.
In 2011, Microsoft’s patent focus seemed to sharpen on Android. Except for Motorola, Microsoft now has every major Android phone vendor in some kind of deal over intellectual property.
No, Microsoft did not pursue a ‘SCOsource’ type license going after individual Linux users or even distros. Microsoft has chased the money and gone after big consumer electronics vendors.Their ‘SCOsource’ is all about the big Android vendors.
In response to more Android FUD, Muktware writes:
I was not surprise when I saw a Forbes headline “Android: The Consequence Of Open” because Forbes is a known anti-Linux outfit. They were the ones who gave Microsoft the platform to spread the FUD that Linux infringes upon their patents which was blown away in a long article. I was not surprised when I found that Forbes story was based on a TechCrunch story written by an Apple fanboy called MG Seigler who writes made up anti-Android blogs when there is nothing good to write about Apple. Ironically both Todd and MG are contradicting themselves in a desperate attempt to attack Android.
There is a followup where Apple fans are blamed as well:
MG Siegler, the Apple columnist for TechCrunch, takes a pot shot on Android and Google when there is nothing good to cover about Apple. He tried to give Google a finger by posted a profile image with universally offensive finger. When Google gave him a finger by ‘allegedly’ removing the image, he went on war with Google. That was not enough, he supposedly started digging through tweets to find something to get some attention and found that one of the most popular tweets of Andy Rubin was missing. He created a hill out of a mole by writing a blog called “The Definition Of Open Is…Missing”.
[...]
This according to MG is against ‘open source’. Let me enlighten MG with the basic definition of open source. The primary definition of open source (I don’t know what MG mean by open!) is that a user must have access to the source and right to modify and redistribute it. How does deleting a tweet violates open-ness?
Anyway, since MG is clueless about how open source works let me tell you why Andy deleted the tweet. Because it was wrong. The command that Andy posted doesn’t work anymore. Since you can’t edit tweets the way you can edit your Google + post, the only sensible option was to delete it. A deleted tweet is far better than a wrong tweet.
Bilal Akhtar, one of the famous Ubuntu developers, commented on MG’s post, “Getting down to facts, +MG Siegler, Rubin deleted the tweet because that method doesn’t work any more. The commands are wrong, now that the Android source code isn’t hosted on git.kernel.org, but instead on android.googlesource.com.”
Over at the Bay area’s press, Apple’s strategy against Android is questioned:
Steve Jobs told his biographer that Apple would rather wage “thermonuclear war” with Google Inc. than make deals to share its technology with the maker of the Android operating system.
That was no empty threat. In the 18 months before Jobs died on Oct. 5, Apple sued HTC, Samsung Electronics and Motorola Mobility, the three largest Android users. It alleged that the phone makers stole Apple’s technology and asked courts to make them stop.
Apple is further criticised for more ridiculous patents:
Apple patent on “interface supporting application switching” = more evil monopoly
Matt Yglesias link here picks up a story on patents from Steve Landsburg link here.
The patent covers a “portable electronic device with graphical user interface supporting application switching”. The effect of the patent seems to preclude any other smartphone maker from doing the same thing.
The above is merely an accumulation of new articles. Soon enough we shall properly write articles on these issues. It’s likely to be our point of focus in 2012. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.28.11
Posted in Apple, DRM, Europe at 7:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Bad Apple is doing bad things in HADOPI land using blackmail (allegedly claiming it “it would pull its business out of France” unless its demands were met)
According to the following Cablegate cable, Apple uses a baclkmail tactics (threatening withdrawal) to affect — for the worse of course — copyright law in France. Quoting the relevant parts: “In press statements, Apple said that the French copyright law amounted to “state-sponsored piracy” and that it would pull its business out of France. This declaration had an unfortunate impact. It heartened claims by free-software advocates and politicians who said that the opening up of DRM would benefit makers of DRM systems by enabling them to prosecute competitors as facilitating piracy. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez’s press comments saying that while he needed to take a look at the legislation, he supported protecting intellectual property rights were widely interpreted to be supportive of Apple, and French pro-interoperability groups reacted disapprovingly. The Odebi League, a citizen’s action group defending the rights of Internet users, told Apple to “mind its business and not meddle into the French legislative process” and pointed out that “if Apple wishes to do business in France, it has to respect the rights that the French enjoy.” Some senators said they regretted that Apple did not appeal to them directly and interpreted it as a lack of interest.”
Shame on Apple.
Here is the Cablegate in ite entirety:
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 003153
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
DEPT FOR E, EB, EB/IPE, EUR/WE
DEPT PLS PASS USTR FOR JSANFORD/VESPINEL/RMEYERS
COMMERCE FOR SJACOBS, SWILSON
DOJ FOR CHARROP, FMARSHALL, RHESSE
COMMERCE PLEASE PASS USPTO
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD PGOV FR
SUBJECT: FRANCE'S DIGITAL COPYRIGHT BILL: SENATE VOTES TO SOFTEN
INTEROPERABILITY BUT LOW PENALTIES REMAIN UNCHANGED
REF. PARIS 01847
¶1. This is an action request. See paragraph 13
¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY. The French Senate approved in the early hours of
May 11 the GOF draft law on digital copyright, in a format which
leaves unchanged the National Assembly's decriminalized penalty
regime, the principle (if not the requirement) of interoperability,
and the so-called "Vivendi Universal Amendment" criminalizing
peer-to-peer software publishing. The draft law adopted by the
Senate largely takes the sting out of interoperability by laying out
general guidelines -- which no longer require Digital Rights
Management (DRM) vendors to divulge industrial secrets to their
competitors -- and creating a new independent authority to decide on
the scope of interoperability and the "right to the exception for
private copy." The newly adopted text, known as the Law on Author's
Rights and Related Rights in the Information Society, generally
abbreviated as DADVSI in French is a step that would bring France in
line with the 2001 EU Digital Copyright Directive.Over the next
month, the text will likely go to a reconciliation conference at the
end of the month, and be signed into law before the summer. END
SUMMARY.
Senate Approval And Next Steps
------------------------------
¶3. (SBU) The DADVSI draft law was adopted by the French upper house
on May 11, with 164 votes in favor, 128 against, and 37 abstentions.
All the votes in favor came from representatives of the right of
center government UMP party. The text will now go before a joint
committee of both houses of the French Parliament to be reconciled,
and for final approval under the current Government "fast-track"
emergency procedure, which requires only one reading by both houses.
Upon completion of the legislative procedure, the draft bill will
be submitted to President Jacques Chirac for signature some time
before the summer. France, which had tabled implementing
legislation in November 2003, is the last country, with Spain, to
transpose the EU Copyright Directive.
Exceptions to Exclusive Copyrights:
----------------------------------
¶4. (SBU) Exceptions to exclusive copyrights, for public libraries
and archives, will now have to fulfil the "three-step test," i.e.
that they be confined to special cases, not conflict with a normal
exploitation of the work, and not unreasonably prejudice the
legitimate interests of the right holder. Education and research
have been added to the restrictive lists of exceptions in the
Senate, following the threat of a campaign of civil disobedience "in
any way they deemed useful and relevant" by over 2000 members of the
French scientific community.
¶5. (SBU) The more traditonal exception for private copy, an
essential feature of French "droit d'auteur," which allows French
residents to freely make copies of works (except software) for their
private use (and that of their family and friends) has also been
refreshed. The number of copies allowed as part of that exception
will now be decided by a new high regulatory authority, in charge of
outlining the contours of the private copy exception as well as the
new interoperability principle. The new authority will also work
hand-in-hand with the already existing Copyright Commission, which
sets the rates and conditions for the "tax on private copy" meant to
address the losses incurred by copyright holders. This tax is levied
on blank media (audio and video cassettes, CD, DVD, as well as
memory and hard drives in portable media players). While most of
this tax goes to rightholders, a quarter of it, representing some 40
million euros a year (USD 50 million), is used to finance cultural
events and festivals throughout France.
Penalties Remain Unchanged
--------------------------
¶6. (SBU) The system of "gradual sanctions", i.e. decriminalized
fines, has been confirmed by the Senate as "fair and balanced" --
despite efforts by one Senator and former Minister of Trade and
Industry, Gerard Longuet, to switch from what he described as
"organized indifference" to stiffer sentences. Culture Minister
Donnedieu de Vabres reiterated on this occasion that the purpose of
the bill was not to go after offenders but to ensure the protection
of works. As a result, non-commercial downloads are subject to the
lowest fine in France's Penal Code (38 euros), the equivalent of a
traffic ticket, instead of the original three years' imprisonment
and 300,000 euro fine proposed earlier by the GOF. These heavy
penalities in the first GOF draft bill created a major outburst in
the National Assembly, eventually leading to the adoption of the
radical "global licence." In the words of one Socialist and
technologically savvy member of the National Assembly, it would be
wrong "to describe the eight million people who have downloaded
music from the Internet as delinquents." On May 11, the Culture
Minister announced that an "index" of all protected works would be
set up to enforce the three goals of the bill: respect of copyright,
private copy and interoperability.
Softening Interoperability
--------------------------
¶7. (SBU) The Senate has proposed largely weakening the National
Assembly's radical ideas on the DRM technology. Two amendments in
the National Assembly's version had stated that providers of DRM
systems should provide the necessary technical documentation to ANY
party needing it to ensure that interoperability, including the
source code. This was interpreted as a direct attack on Apple's
iTunes platform and their iPod players.
¶8. (SBU) In press statements, Apple said that the French copyright
law amounted to "state-sponsored piracy" and that it would pull its
business out of France. This declaration had an unfortunate impact.
It heartened claims by free-software advocates and politicians who
said that the opening up of DRM would benefit makers of DRM systems
by enabling them to prosecute competitors as facilitating piracy.
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez's press comments saying
that while he needed to take a look at the legislation, he supported
protecting intellectual property rights were widely interpreted to
be supportive of Apple, and French pro-interoperability groups
reacted disapprovingly. The Odebi League, a citizen's action group
defending the rights of Internet users, told Apple to "mind its
business and not meddle into the French legislative process" and
pointed out that "if Apple wishes to do business in France, it has
to respect the rights that the French enjoy." Some senators said
they regretted that Apple did not appeal to them directly and
interpreted it as a lack of interest.
Creating A New Regulatory Authority
-----------------------------------
¶9. (SBU) The Senate bill proposes a new regulatory authority to
examine the question of private copies and interoperability. This
new seven-member High Authority, modelled along the lines of
France's independent regulatory bodies in the electricity and gas
sectors (CREG), and in the telecoms and electronic commerce sector
(ARCEP), replaces the much-decried "college of mediators" initiated
by the National Assembly. Its responsibilities, much like its
guidelines, have been left as open as possible to allow for the fast
pace of technological change. At the same time, prodded by
embattled Culture Minister Donnedieu de Vabre and Villepin
administration, the Senate Cultural Affairs Committee developed a
text designed to meet as little opposition as possible from the
National Assembly once in the joint committee for conciliation.
These considerations explain the current text's willingness to pass
the difficult decisions on to the new authority.
Previous Support For Interoperability and Copying
--------------------------------------------- ----
¶10. (SBU) Public discussion of DRM and its effect on the private
copy exception have been particularly vivid in France. French
consumer associations initiated and often won court cases where DRM
restricted private copying -- a sacrosanct exception under French
copyright law.
Over the past three years, French consumer organizations have
initiated a number of court cases dealing with complaints of
consumers about CDs and DVDs that could not be copied and ripped
because of technical protection measures in place. In dealing with
the cases, French courts had developed the argument that the ability
to play a CD or a DVD on different devices constituted an essential
characteristic of a CD or DVD, and that producers of such devices
could be held liable for misleading the consumer in case of
incompatibilities. This first step towards establishing the right
to interoperability was confirmed earlier this year, when a Paris
Court of Appeals concluded that DRMs must respect the private copy
exception.
NEXT STEPS
----------
¶11. (SBU) Next steps include the drafting of implementing
regulations, which would also give the GOF (and stakeholders) an
opportunity to tweak the legislation, particularly regarding
penalties and sentencing. This is expected to take place over the
summer. The GOF will draft and implement these by decree. Other
possibilities for modification, according to lawyers, include a
constitutional challenge, which could come on any number of
articles. We understand that the Commission will eventually examine
all the EU member-states' transpositions of the directive at some
point over the next year. Finally, the GOF notes that the law has a
"review clause" of 18 months, requiring the government to provide
the Parliament with an evaluation of its efficacy.
COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST
--------------------------
¶12. (SBU). France is one of the last countries to fulfil its
obligation to transpose this 2002 EU Directive. In making only a
minimal effort, many Senators seemed to be acknowledging how quickly
technology had moved since then 2002, and during the debates, French
Parliamentarians underscored the irony of a belated implementation
of a directive which the EU Commission is reportedly already in the
process of re-examining. In our conversations over the last weeks
where we raised our serious concerns over the quality and direction
of this controversial bill, French government officials and
observers had sought to reassure us and other stakeholders. We were
told (see reftels) that the Senate version would address many if not
most of industry's concerns. Senate legislative staff was thought
more pro-business, more technologically savvy, and less ideological.
Industry observers, many of whom where involved in a low-profile but
intense effort to reshape the bill with key amendments were
optimistic as well. Working with French industry allies, they
proposed close to 300 amendments. However, with the President and
Prime Minister under political siege, the government and the
majority party were in a hurry to get this complicated and
troublesome bill off their to-do list. By placing the bill on a
legislative fast-track, the government could be assured that the
conciliation conference would be over quickly. This political
pressure resulted in some improvements, such as interoperability,
where industry analysts are somewhat relieved at the results, but a
number of crucial elements remain unchanged, notably the lack of
deterrent penalties.
¶13. (SBU) COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST. The next six months will
provide some limited opportunities to fine-tune the bill, notably in
the drafting of implementing regulations, which the GOF can issue by
decree. Other options would be to raise examination of the
legislation in light of other EU member state transpositions as well
as WIPO and TRIPS commitments. Post would appreciate Washington's
cleared interagency guidance, including any legal analysis regarding
the legislation's impact. End Comment.
Stapleton
If there was threat that Apple “would pull its business out of France,” let them. Better yet, boycott the company in France. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 4:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The attacks on Android fuel a debate about the role of patents and also suggest that the USPTO fails to fulfil its role
THE US patent system has become the centre of attention for many who are looking to remove FOSS barriers. This system is increasingly perceived as undesirable by the American (as in US) public and we need to constantly show this to spread these realisations.
Google was recently granted a patent on driving, as we mentioned the other day. Here is what Against Monopoly has to say about it:
Matt notes that the world gains from this in terms of safety and efficiency. However he questions the patent grant on the grounds that another monopoly has been established by stealth. Fortunately, the patent will be worthless once the world switches to full time computer control of the car. But in the meantime, we will all pay in higher prices.
On the other hand, Google is mostly a victim of this system because its major operating system, which is based on Linux, came under attacks that Google never provoked for. There is good news on that front though:
-
-
Oracle has been dealt a blow in its ongoing patent infringement case against Google.
Late last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected several of the claims in a patent that Oracle has cited in its infringement case against the search giant. According to Groklaw, which obtained the notice, 17 of the 21 claims in Patent No. 6,192,476 have been rejected by the USPTO, following a re-examination the agency conducted earlier this year.
In addition, there are patent attacks coming from Apple and Microsoft, which just like several other companies keep attacking the Internet with SOPA. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols remarks on “Go Daddy’s SOPA Entanglement” and Muktware takes notice:
Go Daddy took a u-turn from its stand on SOPA as the Internet community started boycotting GoDaddy and companies started transferring domains to non-SOPA supporters. Muktware has also initiated the domian transfer from Godaddy to Gandi.net (Hacksheet has already been transferred).
Following our article calling for a boycott against Apple (it got Slashdotted and made the news) there is also a call from Mukware to boycott Apple and Microsoft for their SOPA support.
To quote the call: “Go Daddy burned their fingers when they decided to sell their soul to the devil. More than 21,0000 conscious users migrated to other services. Go Daddy changed its ‘stand’ the same day, which seems to be nothing more than PR strategy as Go Daddy ‘worked’ on crafting this act. If they oppose the act, they must run a campaign to ensure that SOPA is not passed. That’s what it means by ‘opposing’ the bill and not by secretly supporting it via PIPA and Protect IP. Go Daddy paid heavily as ‘informed’ and concerned Go Daddy users revolted and threatened to switch to other registrars.
“There are two monopolies which are endorsing SOPA, Apple and Microsoft.”
–Muktware“How about the other SOPA supporters? Will you be boycotting them? There are two monopolies which are endorsing SOPA, Apple and Microsoft. Apple has not said anything in support of SOPA. But, the company either way doesn’t care about anything beyond its own profits. Apple itself is a censor police where it runs its own version of SOPA. Microsoft, on the other hand, has been openly supporting such biils.”
Further down it says: “The ‘informed and concerned’ Internet community revolted against Go Daddy and brought it to its knees. Are you ready to boycott Microsoft and Apple?” Well, we at Techrights implicitly suggested this for quite some time. Novell too is in the boycott list. Those companies also spread FUD about Android. Tim Carmody wrote an article titled “There Is No Such Thing as Android, Only Android-Compatible”. In it he rebuts Microsoft talking points from its talking heads (like Bott) by explaining that “fragmentation” is actually compatibility. His conclusions: “Ultimately, though, I can’t decide if this is a real problem for Google and Android or potentially a huge advantage. In the short term, it’s been an advantage; It’s let the operating system, user base and developer community grow in a hurry. In the long term, though, it doesn’t seem like Google can continue to maintain tight control of the source code during development and promoting its latest and greatest developments, and then let just about anything go once it’s released while letting less-favored products drift away.
“Soon, we’ll have to sever those two questions — what’s good for Android, the family of broadly compatible devices, as well their users and developers, is bound to come into conflict with what’s good for Google, the search and software company who continue to develop Android and put it into the world.”
Here is an article on the patent war against Android. It’s from the Boston press and it says:
A patent lawsuit won last week by iPhone maker Apple Inc. represented a single victory in a global legal war, with giant corporations fighting for control of the technologies behind smartphones and computers, potentially resulting in less appealing devices or higher prices for consumers.
Technology firms like Google Inc., Samsung Corp., Microsoft Corp., and especially Apple – which is one of the most active combatants – are embroiled in about 100 patent lawsuits in at least 10 countries. The stakes are high: potential domination of the multibillion-dollar market for smartphones, tablet computers, and the software that runs them. One successful lawsuit could generate millions in patent licensing fees for the victor, or it could force a rival firm to modify the way its devices work – even removing features users treasure.
“Patents=nuclear weapons in arms race. Inhibiting innovation. Tech patents should be abolished-Only make sense in slow-moving industries,” wrote Vivek Wadhwa, an influential writer/academic who occasionally writes on the issue. Hopefully we are aproaching the points where public opinion will have the law overwritten in the US. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.26.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 4:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Apple wants embargo on Linux devices
Summary: A roundup of more news about Apple and why it might be reasonable to pressure the company to drop its lawsuits strategy, e.g. by means of boycott
APPLE continues to trouble the Linux/Android world with lawsuits and false allegations, even doctored ‘evidence’. The cult of Mr. Jobs loves to pretend that it invented the smartphones, CrunchPad-like tablets, and all things shiny.
Apple fan sites celebrate Apple patents, too. To name the new example:
On December 23, 2011, Apple filed for the trademark and icon for “Available on the App Store” under applications 302118690 in China and 010520054 in Europe.
That’s right, Europe as well. Over here, Apple has been working hard to embargo — not just sue — the competition. Apple disregards the notion of fair competition, which takes a lot of nerve for a company that built itself on knockoffs (e.g. Xerox PARC).
Over at NASDAQ.com there is a community post which says: ‘Former Apple chief executive Steve Jobs, who died in October, ardently believed Android copied much of Apple’s patented design elements, including multi-touch, swiping and its apps arrangement, according to Walter Isaacson’s “Steve Jobs.” Jobs told Isaacson he would “spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong.”‘
“Yet More Patent Idiocy” called it a columnist at Mother Jones, who noted:
Looking for yet more reasons to feel an all-consuming contempt for software patents and the POS companies that try to enforce them? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Apple Computer’s jihad against the rest of the world’s smartphone makers…
Given the latest actions from Apple we cannot help recommending that people buy nothing from Apple. Boycott the company for being a threat to the IT landscape and also to common sense.
Apple used to be a lot more benign and I even used a Mac at work. But when Apple started the legal assaults (starting with HTC) it made it clear that it was a frantic embargo company and not a producer. Based on a very recent ruling, Apple somehow managed to get a ‘victory’ against HTC, but how much of a victory is it when you become reliant on lawsuits? Here is some more coverage of this. The Telegraph uses Christmas Eve to attack Google with Microsoft/Apple accusations and general smear campaign (the Microsoft lobbyist is cheering this on) and to quote the opening part of the aricle with an inflammatory and reckless headline:
Google’s executive chairman should know. Android, his firm’s smartphone operating system, which is up against Apple’s iOS and Microsoft’s Windows Phone, is under heavy fire from all sides. The best-selling software – along with the Samsung, HTC and Motorola hardware on which it runs – is accused in courts worldwide of plundering the original ideas of others.
There is also an interesting article in CNN and Edward J. Black writes for the Huff & Puff that “Patent Balance Needed to Help End the Smartphone Patent Wars”. To quote: “Smartphones are at the center of a new series of “patent wars,” in which technology companies are spending billions to stockpile patent arsenals. Consumers are the biggest losers in this war, as tech companies focus on costly litigation strategies instead of innovation. Some are acquiring patents to attack competitors, while others are trying to bolster their defenses.”
“The goal here is to defend, not to offend.”In this age when software patents are under constant legal scrutiny we regret to see Apple using those sorts of patents in anti-competitive ways. Apple does not always get its way and to quote the latest example: ‘Apple loses one in its iPad tablet war On ZDNet, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols gives an update on the company’s battle with Samsung. “All I really know is that while it looks like the idiotic tablet design war may be coming to an end, with patents like the one Apple got, we can count on software patents getting in the way of true programming, design and engineering innovation for decades still to come,” he writes. What’s your opinion?”‘
What are our readers’ opinions? Boycott Apple? Perhaps with an ultimatum tied to litigation? The goal here is to defend, not to offend. █
“FSF did some anti-Apple campaigns too. Personally I worry more about Apple because they have user loyalty; Microsoft doesn’t.”
–Bradley M. Kuhn (SFLC)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.23.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 4:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Back to the basket for the bullies from Cupertino
Summary: A roundup of news about Apple’s patent wars (against everyone) and a bit of good news, arriving just before Christmas
AS we return to covering the patent issue we regret to say that there is mostly bad news. Being aware of the news, however, is regretfully essential.
The subject we chose to tackle last is Apple. This company is fast becoming just as much of a nuisance as Microsoft has been. The Inquirer (British tech tabloid) has a nice way of covering Apple stories and it is filled with subtle humour that cushions the blow of horrible news. Recently it covered the news about Apple getting sued for caller ID patents. Previously, a caller ID app for Android was killed this way, demonstrating the terrible state of the patent system.
“Apple’s behaviour with patents is not just harming Linux or Android users; it is harming everyone and even Opera is complaining, noting that Apple patents undermine open standards.”Apple the patent bully might learn to dislike software patents if it gets sued by them quite a lot. So in a way the above news can be classified as good news.
Apple’s behaviour with patents is not just harming Linux or Android users; it is harming everyone and even Opera is complaining, noting that Apple patents undermine open standards. Mike Masnick put it like this and “going for leadership in evil” wrote Glyn Moody (via Jérémie Zimmermann).
Let us recall Apple’s support for MPEG-LA. Apple promotes video tax in yet more ways based on this new report which says:
Royalty-free web vid spec sets sail with Apple’s help
A proposed standard to stream video online smoothly, regardless of network conditions, has been pushed forward with some rather unexpected patent-holder help.
MPEG-DASH was approved in a vote by ISO national member bodies as a way to stream media over HTTP. Publication of the standard is expected “shortly”.
MPEG-DASH could supersede a raft of proprietary and royalty-protected technologies, developed by tech companies to stream media to mobile devices in particular – which are at the mercy of varying network speeds and connectivity conditions.
To Hell with Apple for helping those patent trolls. Another person who helps them is Microsoft Florian, who has pushed their agenda since last year. Florian no longer tries to endorse Microsoft in public because people already know that Microsoft pays him. That would further discredit this deceitful lobbyist.
“Florian no longer tries to endorse Microsoft in public because people already know that Microsoft pays him.”Looking at what Apple does to Linux/Android, here we have a report on “Apple’s first major legal win against Android,” which is “no slam dunk” because despite attempts to remove Linux devices from the shelves, Apple is not quite there yet. But to quote Reuters: “Patent firm IPCom said on Tuesday it had asked top German cellphone retailers to stop selling phones of HTC, threatening them with legal action, as HTC has not complied with a court ruling on injunction of its sales.”
FOSS-hostile patent lawyers write about Apple’s embargo attempts in the US and Murdoch’s fake news claims that HTC phones are “banned from store shelves” although it’s not quite true in practice. As the FFII’s president puts it:
Laughing loud on Apple’s patent “tap on a phone number or address contained in an email to immediately call the number”
Due to this kind of stupidity “Apple May Get To Remove Obvious Features From Android”. Here are some of the details:
Apple May Get To Remove Obvious Features From Android
[...]
Copying an idea and building on it is not “stealing.” And if Apple had to build its devices without building on the ideas of others, it wouldn’t have very much today. This whole thing is a joke, and it’s rulings like this that make engineers have even less respect for the patent system.
Apple brings is bullying to Britain now, i.e. it comes to new countries where software patents are in principle not permitted. Slashdot tells us that “Apple Transfers Patents Through Shell Company To Sue All Phone Makers 422″. We covered this some days ago, but here is the summary which has a huge discussion at the end:
“A patent lawsuit (PDF) by patent licensing firm Digitude Innovations curiously targeted all mobile manufacturers except Apple. A TechCrunch story has revealed that the patents used were transferred from Apple via a shell company to DI, and appear to cover features found in virtually all smartphones. The lawsuit even extends to companies that don’t make Android phones, like Nokia and RIM, and to Android OEMs that Apple have not directly sued yet, like Sony. The business model of DI clearly implies that Apple would benefit financially from the lawsuit as a company that contributed patents to DI’s portfolio.”
Slashdot shows another ridiculous patent from Apple and notes that:
“Apple has had quite a week in patents for the iPhone, and it’s only Tuesday. First was the victory at the International Trade Commission over HTC. And now there’s a shiny new patent on switching to an app during a live phone call (#8,082,523). There may be non-infringing ways of doing something similar, but they probably will be clumsy in comparison.”
Supporters of Apple’s ways should take a moment to objectively assess what Apple is doing here.
Here is how Muktware put it: “In a nutshell its about how you can switch between call and an app. Almost every touch-based phone uses this ‘process’ and potentially infringes upon this patent. It will be a challenge for Apple competitors to find other ways to do the same thing. Yet another example of the software/process patent mess that the flawed US patent system is creating.”
Google has been getting its own share of ridiculous patents, but it has no history of using patents offensively. This ought to invalidate concerns about Google getting more patents. Bloomberg says:
European Union regulators suspended their antitrust review of plans by Google Inc. (GOOG), the biggest maker of smartphone software, to buy Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. after requesting more information about the deal.
The antitrust authority will continue the review after it has obtained “certain documents that are essential to its evaluation of the transaction,” said Amelia Torres, a spokeswoman for the Brussels-based European Commission. The commission temporarily stopped the review on Dec. 6, according to a filing on the regulator’s website today.
The patent angle need not be of concern because Google is not offensive with patents, contrary to claims from the Microsoft lobbyist (Florian). If anything, it can make Motorola more patents hostile and thus reduce altercations. According to this new article, patents are becoming more and more of an issue to Google because:
• Is the cloud the new front in the tech patent wars? A company headed by the founders of peer-to-peer networks Kazaa and Morpheus have reportedly banded together to sue Google, Amazon.com, VMWare and others, alleging patent infringement on cloud technology. The website of the plaintiff, PersonalWeb, says the company owns 13 “fundamental pending and issued patents,” and that it is “developing ground-breaking technologies and products,” including StudyPods, an online learning platform that’s in beta. But a patent-law specialist quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald points out that PersonalWeb filed the lawsuits in a Texas court that’s the “preferred venue for so-called patent trolls.” The eight patents in question include those related to “content addressable storage and/or distributed search engine technologies,” according to the SMH.
Going back to Apple, the company is trying to restrict designs based on ideas that it never came up with itself. To quote Slashdot:
“In a public legal brief (PDF), Apple offers numerous design alternatives that Samsung could have used for its smartphones and tablets to avoid infringing on Apple’s patents. Basically, as long as competitors’ smartphones and tablets bear no resemblance to smartphones and tablets, everything’s cool.”
To finish this with some good news (for a change), Apple lost a case in Germany and that rectangle with buttons on it will therefore be legitimate for sale, even without an apple-shaped logo:
Apple Lost Germany, Court May Allow Samsung To Sell Galaxy Tab
After Australia Apple has lost another ‘patent’ post, this time its Germany. A German court earlier banned the sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany owing to ‘controversial’ design patents. The same design patents were rejected in a Dutch court. To respect the verdict, Samsung modified the design of its Galaxy Tab (which in fact enhances the user experiences as the speakers now face the user) and called it Galaxy Tab 10.1N.
Or as SJVN put it:
Take a long look at the two versions of Samung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 on the right. One, says a German court, violated Apple’s iPad intellectual property (IP) design and thus couldn’t be sold in the European Union (EU). The other one is fine and dandy and can be sold. Can you tell the critical IP differences? Try to work it out before this story’s end.
As you may recall, Apple managed this summer to get the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from being sold in the EU (European Union) because its design looked too much like an iPad. That was a dumb decision. Any tablet has to look pretty much like any other tablet. Now, though, it appears that the tide has turned against Apple. The German court has preliminarily decided that Samsung’s revised design no longer violates Apple’s iPad design.
We are probably going to hear a lot more about it next year. Until then, let us savour the taste of this small victory. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.21.11
Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 11:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Multinational proprietary cartel taking turns in Linux smackdown
Summary: Updates on the Oracle, BT, and Apple actions against Android
FOLLOWING some delays at the US-based embargo agency known as ITC, the word came out about yet another example of anti-competitive tactics, this time from Apple. This affects Linux/Android in a very concrete way as we shall explain in this post.
“All that proprietary giants like Apple and Microsoft can do is throw patents at the ‘problem’ and occasionally use some patent trolls from the outside, adding wood to the fire.”As a bit of background, consider the fact that Linux/Android is gaining in the mobile market and figures from yet more analyst groups say that the same is about to happen on tablets. All that proprietary giants like Apple and Microsoft can do is throw patents at the ‘problem’ and occasionally use some patent trolls from the outside, adding wood to the fire. Steve Jobs’ close friend, Larry Ellison, sure throws a lot of lumber into this fire, but it gradually backfires. One patent at a time, Oracle’s case against Google is disintegrating. One ally of Microsoft, BT, is also throwing some wood into the fire with this new patent lawsuit that runs to the core. The British press wrote a lot about it, whereas, putting Bill Gates-funded publications aside, here at Techrights we wrote about BT for years, also in relation to patents and its relationship with Microsoft (I also wrote about BT in my personal blog [1, 2, 3, 4]). We basically saw that coming. Here are the latest details:
British Telecom is claiming billions of dollars of damages from Google in a lawsuit filed in the US which says that the Android mobile operating system infringes a number of the telecoms company’s key patents.
What motivated BT to sue? The company knows it is bad for PR, but perhaps causing damage to Android/Google was of interest and priority. BT would not have done this to Microsoft/Windows. Remember how hostile Nokia became towards Android after Microsoft had infiltrated it. Patent aggression became part of it and clues of it persist in existence. Apple and Nokia opposed open/free Web video and Apple paid Nokia, only to further harm the Web:
Apple has been garnering quite a reputation for itself as a patent bully, for example using patents around the world in an attempt to stop Samsung competing in the tablet market, and bolstering patent trolls. But that’s not enough for the company, it seems: now it wants to use patents to block open standards.
So much for innovation, eh? As this legal fight between Apple and Samsung continues we learn that:
KOREAN ELECTRONICS GIANT Samsung has entered more claims against Apple in their patent battle in Germany.
The two firms are locked into a war over software and hardware patents and are taking their battles to courts across the globe.
According to Reuters Samsung has filed additional claims in Germany that allege four more patent infringements in the ongoing case there. A spokesperson confirmed this to the news agency.
Remember that Apple started this whole feud.
The ITC, which based in the US, harms companies from Asia at Apple’s behest (yet again) and Rupert Murdoch’s press says that “Apple Ruling Hits Android” (remember that Murdoch and his press hate Google [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] and embrace DRM/Apple):
…it found that some HTC smartphones using Android violated only two claims of one Apple patent related to extracting information such as phone numbers from emails and doing something with the information, such as making a phone call. That invention, sometimes described as covering “data tapping,” allows users to grab data embedded in an unstructured form, like an address, and use it in another phone application, such as mapping.
This patent is a joke. It’s about software patents again. Groklaw has this to say:
We often hear a comparison between the cold war and the large accumulation of patents and their use in the information technology sector. Terms like “mutually assured destruction,” “throw weight,” and others have been in vogue for some time. But I have often viewed the actions of some large IT players and their assertions of infringement of trivial patents as being more akin to sprinkling nails on the highway. That is, just like a driver in a race throwing nails on the road to puncture the tires of following competitors, some of these large patent holders sprinkle their trivial (and worthless?) patents around to slow down their technology competitors. That’s my view of what Apple has been doing of late, particularly in its action before the International Trade Commission against HTC.
Apple innovation means embargo and unfair competition. Against Monopoly called it “another example of why we need to get rid of patents on software.” Android Guys shrugs it off by saying that the “victory means little” because:
So what exactly does this mean for U.S. users? Well, nothing really…
Actually, we beg to differ because unless this systemic malfunction is addressed, customers and developers will continue to suffer. Tyrants and lawyers are taking over the industry. It’s a class war between power/greed and labour. The corporate press — Murdoch’s included — almost always takes the side of tyranny. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, exists around greed. It helps the paper-pushers beat producers. █
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