Summary: What Samsung may mean to LiMo; Microsoft ad infringes on a patent

Samsung is one of the companies that sold out to Microsoft and LiMo still brags about having a patent portfolio/pool, so it is not against the idea of intellectual monopolies.

According to the following report, Samsung's next phone will be LiMo-compliant (for the first time) and since Samsung pays Microsoft for using Linux, it does raise some questions. What might be the impact on LiMo now that it makes room for companies that have a patent deal with Microsoft?

A Samsung executive has confirmed the company is preparing its own version of Linux for a new smartphone, says an industry report. Meanwhile, another story has leaked a sketch of a Linux-based "Samsung i8320" phone said to be near completion, and this device may be Samsung's first LiMo-compliant model.

In other news, Microsoft is again in the midst of allegation of patent infringement.

Not a bad idea right? Well, that depends on who you ask, because Microsoft's ad agency JWT and its parent WPP are being sued over the ad. According to AdAge, a Delaware firm called Denizen claims to have patented this, and alleges that the agency has infriged upon it.

There is some more information about this patent out there and this is just the latest amongst other debacles.

A Delaware firm has filed a lawsuit against JWT and parent WPP, claiming the ad agency stole its patented product-placement concept to use in a campaign for Bing, the new search engine from Microsoft.

In the i4i case [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], where Microsoft's infringement was provably deliberate, we have already seen its two pets Dell and HP competing for love and attention by filing an amicus brief each [1, 2]. It is a bit like Intel and AMD sucking up to Microsoft for preferential treatment and Groklaw has the full text now. Sadly, it's too secret to be shown in full.

However, the brief has been so heavily redacted, even reading the PDF doesn't give you much of an idea why Dell thinks the injunction would be disruptive. It asks in the alternative that the time to make necessary changes be extended to 120 days, if the court affirms the injunction, which seems a reasonable request depending on the harm i4i presents and is able to establish. The court tries to balance the equities. Somebody is going to be hurt in this picture, obviously.

Here is some more coverage of this, along with many comments. There is also this update about the recent Cordance vs Amazon case:

Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, defeated a lawsuit brought by software maker Cordance Corp., with a jury deciding Amazon didn’t infringe two online-shopping patents and that a third is invalid.

What goes around comes around. Amazon wanted ownership of one-click shopping and it got stung. ⬆