04.01.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, RAND at 2:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Europe, Patents, RAND at 7:29 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No es difícil imaginar quién se beneficiaría de hacer lo abstracto patentable
Sumario: La UPC también tiene un ángulo/elemento FRAND en ella y así, en muchos casos, patentes de software en Europa (impuesto sobre patentes y/o juicios por software, que es copiado y distribuído en vez de fabricado o producido)
LA gerencia de la EPO, parece esta trabajando para las grandes corporaciónes (que no son incluso Europeas)*, tratándo de manera no democrática impulsar a la hóstil contra las PYMEs UPC, por extensión esparciéndo las patentes de software en el continente/Comunidad/naciones Europeas y más allá de ellas (la EPO es más amplia que ello) – una herramienta de colonización/dominación viniendo del otro lado del charco -. Los exáminadores de la EPO no toleran esto ya que pone en peligro la calidad de patentes y daña la credibilidad de la EPO, conjuntamente con el valor percibido de las patentes Europeas (EPs). Ya hemos presentado esto en muchos artículos, citando expertos en el campo, diciéndo que la UPC traería las patentes de software a Europa.
“Los exáminadores de la EPO no toleran esto ya que pone en peligro la calidad de patentes y daña la credibilidad de la EPO, conjuntamente con el valor percibido de las patentes Europeas (EPs).”Una materia sobre la que hemos estado escribiéndo por más de 9 años es RAND (algunas veces conocido como FRAND por un mucho más ¨justo¨ extra eúfemismo). Este nuevo artículo de la prensa India (donde el debate acerca de las patentes de software ha estado caliente reciéntemente) habla acerca de ¨FRAND¨ como sigue: “La semana pasada tuvimos un artículo en estandar patentes esenciales (“SEPs”) por Divya Rajput, y como us licensiamento en Justo, Razonable, y No-Discriminatorio (“FRAND”) términos ayuda a varias industrias para operar y server clientes. Ms. Rajput hace varios puntos intersantes, pero estos no estan basados en la realidad y reflejan inconsistencias lógicas.
“Ya hemos presentado muchos artículos, citando a expertos en el campo, diciéndo que la UPC traería patentes de software a Europa.”“Hubo un tiempo en el que servidumbre por contrato (en LatinoAmerica la tuvimos hasta mediados del siglo pasado con la venia de los Estados Unidos, y en Mexico todavía algunos reductos que sirven grandes campos de cultivo que alimentan a los vecinos del norte) fue considerada una cosa buena. Gracias a Dios no estamos viviéndo aquellos días. Hoy, es una ofensa criminal. Lo mismo es verda del licensiamiento de SEPs. Lo que fué una excelente práctica de negocios en los 90s, no es viable estrategia de negocios hoy. De los cinco originales (Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, and Nortel), ninguno permanece proveyendo y fabricándo teléfonos mobiles. En vez, todos están envueltos en licensiamiento de patentes de una forma u otra. Los grados de cross-licensing en estos dias no pueden ser usados como puntos de referencias hoy.”
Bueno, basados en este nuevo reporte de MIP, la UPC permanece siendo un Caballo de Troya para FRAND y así las patentes de software en Europa (escribimos muchos artículos acerca de esto cerca del 2008). Para citar MIP (detrás de un muro de pago): “Nuesto últmo escenario de la UPC envuelve un caso de patente esencial/estandar. Michael Carter, Nick Cunningham y David Barron consideran las opciónes de un acusado en el nuevo sistema de corte” (vean este reciénte ejemplo).
“…Es imperativo refutar esas pretensiones que vienen primariamente de los abogados de patentes, la EPO, y periodistas crédulos que imprimen cualqier cosa que les dicen esos dos grupos anteriores.”Lectores deben ser conscientes de en círculos cabilderos anti-FOSS (e.g. la Business Software Alliance o la Association for Competitive Technology) FRAND se convirtió en un refrán para patentes de software e incompatibilidad con FOSS. Ellos trltan de reducir progresivamente FOSS fuera de existencia, o simplemente hacerlo arbitráriamente sujeto a pagos (veán lo que Microsoft esta haciéndo a Linux y Android por instancia), he aqui oneroso y díficil/imposible/prohibido de redistribuir. La UPC es una cosa peligrosísima. Hay un artículo en Alemán acerca de ello] (reciéntemente publicado, traducciones serían muy apreciadas) y dados los altos (y creciéntes) niveles de desinformacion en los medios acerca de la UPC, es imperativo refutar esas pretensiones que vienen primariamente de los abogados de patentes, la EPO, y periodistas crédulos que imprimen cualqier cosa que les dicen esos dos grupos anteriores. █
_____
* Es suficiente decir, que la EPO no es Europea pero un cuerpo internacional (exempto incluso de las leyes Europeas). Lo único “Europeo” acerca de ella son sus empleados. A pesar de trabajar paara un cuerpo internacional, estos empleados son también Europeos (ciudadanos de la UE), por lo tanteo deberían tener intereses Europeos que defender, a diferencia de la gerencia (DIRIGIDA POR O HECHA PARA COMPLACER INTERESES EXTRANJEROS).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.30.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, RAND at 7:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s not hard to imagine who would benefit from making the abstract patentable
Summary: The UPC also has a FRAND angle/element to it and thus, in many cases, software patents in Europe (patent tax or lawsuits over software, which is typed and copied or distributed rather than manufactured or produced)
THE EPO‘s management, seemingly working for large corporations (not even European)*, keeps trying to undemocratically push the SMEs-hostile UPC, by extension spreading software patents in the European continent/commonwealth/nations and beyond them (the EPO is broader than that). Examiners at the EPO oughtn’t tolerate this as it jeopardises the quality of patents and damages the credibility of the EPO, along with the perceived value of European patents (EPs). We have already presented many articles, citing experts in the field, saying that UPC would bring software patents to Europe.
“Examiners at the EPO oughtn’t tolerate this as it jeopardises the quality of patents and damages the credibility of the EPO, along with the perceived value of European patents (EPs).”One subject we have been writing about for over 9 years is RAND (sometimes known as FRAND for an extra euphemism, “fair”). This new article from the Indian press (where the debate about software patents has been hot recently) speaks about “FRAND” as follows: “The past week had an article on standard essential patents (“SEPs”) by Divya Rajput, and how their licensing on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms helps several industries to operate and serve customers. Ms. Rajput makes several interesting points, but these points are not grounded in reality and reflect logical inconsistencies.
“We have already presented many articles, citing experts in the field, saying that UPC would bring software patents to Europe.”“There was a time when indentured servitude was considered to be a good thing. Thank God we are not living in those days. Today, it is a criminal offense. Same is true for licensing of SEPs. What was an excellent business practice in the 90s, is not a viable business strategy today. Out of the original five (Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, and Nortel), none remains in providing and manufacturing mobile phones. Rather, all are involved in patent licensing in some form or the other. The cross-licensing rates in those days cannot be used as a bench mark today.”
Well, based on this new report from MIP, UPC remains a Trojan horse for FRAND and thus software patents in Europe (we wrote many articles about this around 2008). To quote MIP (behind paywall): “Our latest UPC scenario looks at a case involving a standard-essential patent. Michael Carter, Nick Cunningham and David Barron consider a defendant’s options in the new court system” (see this recent example).
“…it’s imperative to rebut the claims which come primarily from patent lawyers, the EPO, and gullible journalists who just print whatever they’re told by those former two groups.”Readers should be made aware that in anti-FOSS lobbying circles (e.g. Business Software Alliance or Association for Competitive Technology) FRAND became a byword for software patents or incompatibility with FOSS. They try to phase FOSS out of existence, or simply make it arbitrarily taxable (see what Microsoft is doing to Linux and Android for instance), hence expensive and hard/impossible/verboten to redistribute. The UPC is a very dangerous thing. There is an article in German about it (just published, translations would be appreciated) and given the high (and growing) levels of misinformation in the media about the UPC, it’s imperative to rebut the claims which come primarily from patent lawyers, the EPO, and gullible journalists who just print whatever they’re told by those former two groups. █
_____
* Suffice to say, the EPO is not European but an international body (exempt even from European laws). The only “European” thing about it is the staff. In spite of working for an international body, this staff is also European (EU citizens), hence should have European interests to defend, unlike the management (bossed by or made to please foreign stakeholders).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.22.16
Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, Patents, RAND at 2:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Article by a reader of ours, who prefers to remain anonymous
Summary: The European Union Parliament has recommended Free and Open Source Software for several goals
A January 2016 resolution by the European Union Parliament, “European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act (2015/2147(INI))“, has points relevant to the adoption and promotion of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). Specifically, points #89, #110, and #125 mention FOSS by name. The first two mention it in the context of security and interoperability, respectively. The third, #125, calls for a general increase in its use. Here they are quoted below with emphasis in yellow added.
89. Considers that software providers should better promote the security advantages of open source software and security-related software upgrades to users; calls on the Commission to explore an EU-wide coordinated vulnerability disclosure programme, including the repair of known software vulnerabilities, as a remedy against the abuse of software vulnerabilities and security and personal data breaches;
…
110. Urges the Commission and the Council to increase the share of free and open source software and its reuse in and between public administrations as a solution to increase interoperability;
…
125. Calls on the Commission and Member States to renew their commitment to the EU 2020 strategy’s research and innovation targets as building blocks of a competitive Digital Single Market, economic growth and job creation, with a comprehensive approach to Open Science, Open innovation, Open data and knowledge transfer; considers that this should include a revised legal framework for text and data mining for scientific research purposes, the increased use of free and open source software, particularly in educational establishments and public administrations, and easier access for SMEs and start-ups to Horizon 2020 funding adapted to the short innovation cycles of the ICT sector; stresses in this respect the importance of all relevant initiatives, from public-private partnerships and innovation clusters to European technology and science parks, notably in less industrialised European regions, and accelerator programmes for start-ups and joint technology platforms, as well as the ability to license standard-essential patents effectively, within the restraints of EU competition law, under FRAND licensing terms, in order to preserve R&D and standardisation incentives and foster innovation;
It is interesting to note that #125 calls for the increased use of Free and Open Source Software to facilitate science, innovation, and knowledge transfer. The mention of “Open data and knowledge transfer” can be interpreted to mean Open Access, related to FOSS but in publishing. In regards to FOSS itself, a stumbling block is the explicit mention of FRAND-licensing for patents as included in standards, as it has traditionally been used as a means to block use of FOSS. But given the context of promoting FOSS elsewhere in the document and, especially in the same paragraph, that would include royalty-free licensing of standards as a pre-requisite for anything to be considered even remotely reasonable.
Another resolution is from this last autumn and is entitled, “Follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens”
Item #47 states even more specifically that open source must be a mandatory criterion in procurement.
47. Welcomes the steps taken so far to strengthen Parliament’s IT security, as outlined in the action plan on EP ICT Security prepared by DG ITEC; asks for these efforts to be continued and the recommendations made in the resolution fully and swiftly carried out; calls for fresh thinking and, if necessary, legislative change in the field of procurement to enhance the IT security of the EU institutions; calls for the systematic replacement of proprietary software by auditable and verifiable open-source software in all the EU institutions, for the introduction of a mandatory ‘open-source’ selection criterion in all future ICT procurement procedures, and for efficient availability of encryption tools;
Going back even further, to 2001, there is a resolution warning of actions needed to be taken to protect e-mail privacy.
European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))
As the Snowden revelations have shown, these measures have proven to be sound and to work in regards to protecting the content of messages. Indeed, in that resolution, it is most clearly stated that only FOSS can fulfil security requirements at all.
29. Urges the Commission and Member States to devise appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture European encryption technology and software and above all to support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software;
30. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote software projects whose source text is made public (open-source software), as this is the only way of guaranteeing that no backdoors are built into programmes;
31. Calls on the Commission to lay down a standard for the level of security of e-mail software packages, placing those packages whose source code has not been made public in the “least reliable” category;
32. Calls on the European institutions and the public administrations of the Member States systematically to encrypt e-mails, so that ultimately encryption becomes the norm;
33. Calls on the Community institutions and the public administrations of the Member States to provide training for their staff and make their staff familiar with new encryption technologies and techniques by means of the necessary practical training and courses;
In summary, the European Union Parliament has recommended Free and Open Source Software for several goals. These goals are privacy, security, innovation, and interoperability. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.07.15
Posted in America, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 8:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A roundup of patent news from the US and from Europe, focusing on various themes which we have been covering for many years
Unfair, Discriminatory and Unreasonable FRAND (no FRIEND)
POPULAR patent lawyers’ Web site/blog, Patently-O (usually quite subjective on the subject of software patents, although not as grossly so as IAM or Gene Quinn, whom we’ll allude to later on) has just published a piece from Prof. Contreras, who therein remarks on the now-popular subject which is RAND (or FRAND, an even more misleading euphemism because it adds the word “fair” to something which is clearly unfair, never mind unreasonable and discriminatory, definitely no FRIEND). We wrote a lot about RAND/FRAND more than three quarters of a decade ago (perhaps 18,000 articles ago), especially in relation to Europe because there were technical parliamentary debates about it, accompanied by heavy lobbying by Microsoft, very persistently in fact so as to exclude Free/Open Source software as a matter of law. A Microsoft front group is now lobbying on the FRAND front again, using a new livery, “All Things FRAND”. So watch out! This new guest post by Prof. Contreras cites a somewhat popular caselaw, involving Microsoft’s patent war on Android/Linux, fought through Motorola before the Google takeover (see our Wiki page about it).
“We wrote a lot about RAND/FRAND more than three quarters of a decade ago (perhaps 18,000 articles ago), especially in relation to Europe because there were technical parliamentary debates about it, accompanied by heavy lobbying by Microsoft, very persistently in fact so as to exclude Free/Open Source software as a matter of law.”To quote one relevant (to us) part of the piece: “Interestingly, this case represents the second appellate decision this year in which the admissibility of comparable license agreements has been challenged in RAND royalty determinations. In the prior case, Microsoft v. Motorola, 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit was more deferential to the District Court’s exclusion of potentially comparable license agreements. In Microsoft, the Circuit Court upheld the District Court’s exclusion of three arm’s length license agreements to which Motorola was a party for reasons including the fact that some agreements were entered into to settle or forestall litigation, they included patents other than the patents at issue, they included cross-licenses and they included royalty caps. It will be interesting to see how the Circuits reconcile their interpretations of this key evidentiary standard in future cases.”
Litigation/Extortion by (Patent) Proxy
Now, recall and consider the latest output from other pro-patent maximalism sites (meaning they want more feuds, hence more lawyer income). Right now it’s IAM which, without using the T word (troll), reveals that Panasonic too, not just companies like Microsoft, supports outside trolls for business objectives (Microsoft uses trolls like Intellectual Ventures and MOSAID, which has been renamed in a likely effort to dodge negative publicity). These companies use their patent portfolio in a very mischievous way, passing patents to trolls like Ericsson did. Ericsson’s troll too has changed its name after receiving a lot of negative press. Remember that Ericsson is a European company and take note of new or emergent patent trolls in Europe. This plague is spreading across the Atlantic.
“These companies use their patent portfolio in a very mischievous way, passing patents to trolls like Ericsson did.”Notice the connection of all the above companies to the EPO (we covered all of these before) and recall the special the role of one of them in discriminatory patent granting at the EPO (or closer/special contacts).
EPO is Innovative! According to Shallow ‘Placements’…
Speaking of contacts, we must wonder if this new patent lawyers’ analysis is basically some kind of media placement or presence (this new one from Managing IP also looks similar to classic puff pieces, but not exactly so). It paints the EPO as some kind of a super-advanced system where — gasp! — video conferencing is used. Welcome to the 1990s!
“It paints the EPO as some kind of a super-advanced system where — gasp! — video conferencing is used. Welcome to the 1990s!”“Many of us,” wrote the author, “are familiar with conducting business by video conference. It provides an extra option for talking to remote clients that is much less expensive and time-consuming than an in-person meeting, but can result in a better personal connection than a phone meeting.”
So basically the whole article then hails the EPO for using — gasp! — video conferencing. Wow, the innovation!
EPO Staff Not Gonna Take It Anymore
Well, it’s now increasingly clear that the EPO is desperate for positive publicity because it is widely loathed. Another EPO staff protest will take place this Thursday, as planned quite some time ago. The exact plans are now being outlined by SUEPO in their new update (top of this public page). To quote SUEPO: “The next demonstration will take place on Thursday 10 December, starting from the Pschorrhöfe building at 12h. The demonstrators will march peacefully to the local Palace of Justice.
“Isn’t it funny that the EPO’s management tries to frame staff as the issuer of threats when it’s actually the management doing so?”“With these demonstrations staff protests against the persistent attacks on its staff representatives, culminating in the suspension of and disciplinary procedures against 3 Union officials in Munich.”
Of course there will (as usual) be attempt to crush these protests by all means possible/available, even ahead of time. It’s commonly done using threats directed at organisers. Isn’t it funny that the EPO’s management tries to frame staff as the issuer of threats when it’s actually the management doing so? Well, a French politician who represents French workers abroad (that’s a lot of French patent examiners) rapidly becomes Battistelli’s Nemesis and we hope these protests will help demonstrate to more politicians that not all is well and serious reform is desperately needed.
Software Patents
Longtime readers already know that our main concern about the EPO has always been software patents in Europe. Software professionals universally reject software patents, but they’re not the ones voting on such matters if the likes of Battistelli want to meet so-called ‘production’ goals, meaning, by definition of these goals, granting patents in more domains and granting invalid/bogus patents.
“Europe’s patent system is now having far broader an issue than just patent scope.”Gene Quinn, a “blowhard” (to quote IP Troll Tracker) patent lawyer and longtime proponent of software patents, is still at it. He and I exchanged over a hundred messages in Twitter, only to find out that he never wrote any code that he can point to (he claimed he had written some but was unable to find evidence). He just doesn’t understand how software works and cannot tell the difference between data/input and program code. He is now trying to give people tips for patenting software, even after US courts repeatedly ruled against (many) such patents.
Europe’s patent system is now having far broader an issue than just patent scope. At the end — and we hope or suppose patent examiners will agree — we sorely need a patent policy that represents public opinion and maximises benefit to the public. Over-patenting leads to higher costs on everything (the ‘lawyers tax’) and can also suppress innovation and development, either by means of deterrence/fear or by over-encumbering litigation, sometimes initiated by opportunistic patent trolls (occasionally operating at the behest of larger entities seeking to annihilate rivals, as noted above). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.03.14
Posted in Apple, Google, Patents, RAND, Samsung at 8:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Mistakes made in the EU as well
Summary: Software patents make an appearance in Europe again, this time in FRAND form
SOMETHING troubling has happened in the Apple vs. Samsung case, which is how Microsoft’s subversive club of Android foes (Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft plus smaller trolls for the most part) has been trying to make Android expensive, undermining its principal selling point, The patent-stacking battle, which Microsoft has been wittingly and visibly involved it (Microsoft supports Apple and Oracle of course), now reaches a phase of EU intervention:
EU moves to end smartphone patent wars in landmark ruling
The ruling will help to draw a line under long-running feuds between smartphone makers
Apple propaganda sites have been covering this case, saying that “jurors deciding the outcome of the second Apple vs Samsung trial haven’t yet returned a verdict, but their options are limited to a few possible outcomes, ranging from a fiery thermonuclear blast to a wintery new Dark Ages.”
Well, “thermonuclear” is a term borrowed from Steve Jobs himself. He strives for thermonuclear outcome. He is as apocalyptic as he is “visionary”.
Anyway, here is Richard Stallman’s response to the EU’s intervention:
The European Union is stopping Apple and Samsung from suing each other for patent infringement.
Unfortunately, its “solution” is a terrible mistake: imposing “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” terms. In practice, this means patent licenses that discriminate against free software by charging license fees per copy, which free software developers can’t possibly pay. There is nothing “reasonable” about that.
FRAND, as we have argued for years, is a Trojan horse for software patents in the EU and elsewhere. We need to reject this. Ideally, the EU should just send Apple and its “thermonuclear” ambitions somewhere far away — a place where the Sun won’t shine. Apple is the aggressor here and it is part of a broader plot to undermine Android and Linux rather than outwit or provide technical competition. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.26.13
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 12:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Thickets are all bad
Summary: Putting in perspective Motorola’s SEPs, which the FTC has just ruled on in the United States
Standard-essential patents, better known as SEPs, are anticompetitive and we have criticised them all along (there are 75 posts in our RAND section). But sometimes they are being used for AstroTurfing by the likes of Florian Müller, who conveniently ignores the real source of the abuse. That would be his employer Microsoft that hires him to spout out nonsense and foist that onto journalists. Android, being the leading operating system of our time (at Microsoft’s expense), is under attack from Apple and Microsoft, which now work together (publicly even) to stop Android. They are using patents. A pro-Apple site says that some “newly published patent application from Apple describes a “power management for electronic devices” system, which detects the usage patterns of a mobile phone and estimates the required energy needed to run the phone between charges.”
We have already seen the Microsoft-occupied Nokia using such patents against Android in Europe, so there is a pattern here. Based on this article and another about Motorola, the fight against Android increasingly consolidates on patents as the means, coupled with antitrust complaints (via Microsoft proxies like Nokia). Groklaw says that:
The ban on injunctions on the Motorola FRAND patents has been lifted, although there remain certain restrictions. What does it mean? It means, to me, that there have been reverberations from the ITC decision recently to grant an injunction against Apple for reverse patent hold up, rejecting its defense that Samsung was violating its FRAND obligations by asking for too much to license. That told the world that injunctions are available to FRAND patent owners. Second, I think it means that the Microsoft/Apple/FOSSpatents campaign to make the world believe it should be impossible for FRAND patent owners to seek injunctions is failing. The tide is turning. Third, this is an order based on a settlement agreement, so it doesn’t apply necessarily to anyone else but Google’s Motorola patents. But it should have an impact on litigation currently in progress.
This was also covered by Andy Updegrove, who said that the FTC “issued the Final Order in its action against Google involving that company’s assertion of certain “standards essential patents” (SEPs). Google gained control of the patents in question through its earlier acquisition of Motorola Mobility and asserted them against various mobile device vendors. Those parties cried foul, claiming that the terms that Google had demanded were inconsistent with the obligations assumed to license the SEPS on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) terms to all implementers of the standards in question.
“It is essential to remember that Google picked up Motorola and picked some patents only after it had been repeatedly attacked by CPTN members like Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and their patent trolls.”“Google agreed to a settlement with the FTC this past January, following which the FTC released a draft settlement order for public comment. The Final Order just released includes a variety of adjustments and changes resulting from the 25 comments received during the public comment period. The 34 page Final Order can be found here and a seven page letter, sent to each commenter and explaining the changes made, is here.”
Updegrove added that “[b]ecause the FTC and European Commission regulators are urging standards setting organizations (SSOs) to take action to diminish the current wave of FRAND disputes, these final materials will be read with great interest by SSO members (and their lawyers). Along with the court decisions that continue to issue in FRAND cases, they will have a significant impact on the evolving discussion about what rules, if any, SSOs and their members will decide to enact in reaction to the requests of regulators, and to their own concerns regarding uncertainties in the marketplace. Despite the desire of the regulators to see action sooner rather than later, that process is likely to take years to fully mature.”
Complaints on a FRAND/blanket basis have merit when it comes to patent stacking by Android foes. It is essential to remember that Google picked up Motorola and picked some patents only after it had been repeatedly attacked by CPTN members like Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and their patent trolls. Don’t be misled by spin from Microsoft, Apple, and mouthpieces of theirs (like Müller). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.28.13
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 4:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A little update on Apple’s and Microsoft’s patent battles against Android/Linux
Google bought a part of Motorola, essentially inheriting some lawsuits over the future of Android when it comes to patents. This means that Google now has this dispute with Microsoft and another one with Apple. “It’s been relatively quiet in the Western District of Washington over the past couple weeks,” say the FRAND boosters, “as Motorola and Microsoft move forward toward an August jury trial on Microsoft’s RAND-based breach of contract claims.”
“Apple tried embargoing Android products, instead ending up with its own products embargoed.”FRAND has become a joint Microsoft-Apple strategy for taxing Android. Apple is still suing, publicly escorted by Microsoft for support. Now it turns out that Apple’s patent chief is leaving and he may have been the person behind this whole litigation strategy. Apple was previously dealing with patents on a defensive basis, but in 2009 it turned offensive, starting with threats against Palm [1, 2, 3]. The following year it started suing. Here is a case of Apple being sued. In this case, the US “Supreme Court declines to hear Mirror Worlds’ appeal, putting to rest the long-running patent infringement case.”
More interestingly, when it comes to Apple as the aggressor, it turns out its patent chief played a major role. The aforementioned article says that he “played an increasingly high-profile role at Apple in recent years as lawsuits began to mount. Last year, he testified on Apple’s behalf in its patent infringement litigation with Samsung.”
It also says that “he warned late Apple CEO Steve Jobs and then-COO Tim Cook in 2010 that Samsung’s smartphones may infringe on the iPhone’s patents.”
According to this article about the judge in this high-profile case, there is something to be learned from public debates:
Want to know what U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh really thinks about patent litigation?
Companies demand too many do-overs; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office behaves like no other federal agency; and the recent suggestion in a New York Times op-ed that lower court judges have the power to make so-called patent trolls pay for vexatious litigation is unfair and misleading.
Judge Posner weighed in on this [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] as he dismissed Apple’s claims, denying the embargo strategy that Apple had conceived. Watch Apple scrambling to undo what the ITC embargo against Apple would cause. As Groklaw puts it, “the ITC early in June ordered an injunction and a cease and desist order against some of Apple’s products, on a complaint from Samsung that Apple was refusing to pay anything at all for a FRAND patent of Samsung’s. The shock waves from that were heard throughout the patent universe. And now Apple is trying to block it from happening. Both Apple and Samsung have filed written submissions with the USTR, as The Essential Patent Blog reports. The President of the United States can undo that ITC injunction order based on the public interest, and Apple is asking the Office of the United States Trade Representative, as the President’s representative in such matters, to do exactly that…”
“With Apple’s patent chief out of the company, perhaps a rethink of this misguided litigation strategy is imminent.”This is funny. Apple tried embargoing Android products, instead ending up with its own products embargoed. Instant karma! And watch Apple’s workers in China “looking to reduce reliance on Apple” (but “diversifying into R&D, software patents and e-commerce”). According to this, people who actually manufacture Apple-branded devices are seeing a dip in demand for Apple, an overrated and overpriced brand. Linux/Android is the cause, hence all those patent lawsuits. With Apple’s patent chief out of the company, perhaps a rethink of this misguided litigation strategy is imminent. One can hope so. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.13.13
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 3:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Angry at FOSS
Summary: Microsoft publicly steps forward as part of Apple’s war on Linux/Android, making the anti-FOSS alliance more visible than before
The FRAND debate has been inadvertently dealing with whether software patents have backdoor-like legitimacy around the whole world. FRAND opposer Judge Posner [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] did the right thing, seeing perhaps how the Microsoft-Apple patents alliance uses FRAND against Google/Android. Now we see those two companies in cahoots more clearly than before: “Microsoft’s Amicus Brief in Support of Apple in Appeal of Posner Ruling – A Change in Tune on Injunctions”
Microsoft has now filed an amicus brief in support of Apple in the appeal of Judge Richard Posner’s ruling in which the judge tossed out both Apple and Motorola’s claims with prejudice, saying neither had proven damages and saying injunctive relief when there was no demonstrable harm would be against the public interest. Interestingly, Microsoft here argues in its brief that the judge didn’t rule out injunctive relief for FRAND patents.
Nice to see those duopolists so openly showing their collusion against a competitor. They are ousting their conspiracy (e.g. CPTN) to destroy Android. Will President Obama pay attention or will he only try to tackle small players? █
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