08.18.11
Posted in America, Antitrust, Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 2:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft starts a campaign of lies against Google because Google exposes Microsoft’s serious antitrust violations just when an antitrust official in the CPTN/Novell case becomes antitrust chief
MICROSOFT wants to have it both ways with CPTN, a collective of Novell’s patents. On the one hand Microsoft wants to intimidate Google (threats of legal action) and on the other hand it wants to use CPTN to characterise Google as an “evil” patent hoarder. Microsoft’s chief liar from Waggener Edstrom is responsible for this utterly shameless PR strategy, which was supposed to distract people from the real news about Microsoft conspiring with Apple to attack Google’s Android (Linux). This is not the first time that we see such strategic decoy. We saw that some days ago when Motorola and Google had an announcement to make and also when Microsoft got caught in a major scandal, plagiarising Google results by tracking users. Microsoft tried to deflect by painting Google — not itself — as the villain in this story.
Being a disgusting, despicable liar is not a crime; it’s Microsoft’s modus operadi.
So anyway, what is the non-story Microsoft used to distract people away from its patent racket which raises antitrust issues based on Google’s own statements (we wrote about it last week)? It is this utter nonsense, which, if anything, shows Microsoft being rejected and Google doing the right thing. As Bloomberg’s headline put it (the real story), “Google Says Microsoft’s Offer to Join Novell Bid Was a Ploy”. To quote:
When Microsoft asked Google to take part in a bid for Novell’s patents, it wanted to block the Internet-search giant from gaining protection against the other bidding partners, Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond said today.
“Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them,” Drummond said this afternoon on Google’s blog, updating a posting he wrote yesterday. “We didn’t fall for it.”
The whole thing began when a Microsoft PR liar (originally from its PR agency Waggener Edstrom) started a confrontation in Twitter and made it look like both sides were fighting (the reality is that Google was the victim, Microsoft the aggressor).
Microsoft are such disgusting liars. In order to get some media attention (they can pull the right strings), they pretend to have made a ‘leak’ available, rather than issue something electronically. Putting aside confidentiality violations (Microsoft doesn’t give a damn about the law or about ethics), what it shows is far from evidence of crime. If anything, perhaps Google should respond by making a new searchable site for Comes vs Microsoft, full with evidence of Microsoft’s aggression and its crime lasting decades. This includes evidence of an attack on charities because these may help Google.
Now, watch who is becoming antitrust chief? According to The Hill, it is the same person who led “antitrust [...] in the CPTN/Novell case”, ending up with a GPL-compatible compromise. To quote:
Pozen came to the Antitrust Division in February 2009 as chief of staff and counsel. She was the lead antitrust official in the CPTN/Novell case, which involved a group of tech firms including Microsoft and Apple being forced to license old Novell patents to the open-source community.
Maybe there is hope that this official will also see how Microsoft is distorting the CPTN saga in order to daeminise Google and meanwhile hide its own serious antitrust violations.
And how about Microsoft’s mole which was put inside Nokia, possibly to attack Google using patents in the near future? That too is part of the collusion we might see later this year. According to this report, Microsoft’s mole in Nokia “Warns Of Google-Motorola Deal”. Anyone surprised?
“Stephen Elop who came from Microsoft to take control of Nokia has done little to help Nokia, but everything to help Microrosft,” writes Muktware. “Interestingly the guinea pig Nokia phone N9 running Nokia’s own OS MeeGo, which was hugely appreciated did not impress Elop. He flatly said that even if N9 does well the company will not change the course from becoming the delivery truck for Microsoft.”
Further down it says: “According to my observation the message ex-president of Microsoft’s Business Division, now in charge of Nokia, seems to be giving is:
* Nokia’s shutdown of MeeGo is OK
* Microsoft’s repeated attack on Android players it OK
* Spreading FUD via proxies (Edward J. Naughton, Florian Mueller) is OK
* But if Google acquires Motorola to protect itself from the attacks of Microsoft that is not OK.
“Whenever I read comments from Stephen Elop, the ex-president of Microsoft’s Business Division now in charge of Nokia to make it a hardware delivery truck for Microsoft, I struggle to figure out myself, why this comment seems to be coming from Microsoft!”
Microsoft is like a cancer that attaches itself to companies and the antitrust regulators are simply not doing their job. Moreover, Microsoft is lying like truth is a sin and nobody in the corporate press calls them out on it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google at 6:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Balancing of patents between the Android side and the non-Android side ensures that Apple would have to reassess its embargo-to-compete strategy
APPLE’S empire is heavily built upon trademarks, probably more so than lock-in or any genuine technical merit. What Apple fears the most is that people may start realising that they overpay for junk they can get elsewhere for half the price and with twice the number of features. For Microsoft it’s the same problem, but rather relying on trademarks, Microsoft is relying on kickbacks, other dirty dealings, and technical lock-in. Linux is to proprietary software what the industrial revolution was to Luddites.
“Linux is to proprietary software what the industrial revolution was to Luddites.”While many know that this site is against Samsung, it is clear that when it battles against Apple over the use of Android, the decision may matter to a lot of companies which distribute Linux. “Samsung’s Lee eyes deals to boost software prowess,” writes Reuters, noting that “Lee made similar remarks in late July, urging managers to boost its software prowess, patent pools and talent at the firm’s annual event comparing Samsung’s vast product portfolios ranging from televisions, handsets and computers against those of its rivals.”
Notice the part about patent pools and mind the endless FUD about Google’s purchase of part of Motorola. The real news is that Google sought patent deterrence, not an Android monoculture. As one article put it, “the manufactures are tit-for-tatting over software patents, those ridiculous monstrosities of failed policy.” Mike Masnick’s headline was “Motorola Deal Showing Massive Loss To Innovation Caused By Patents” and Dr. Glyn Moody wrote:
I am really quite relieved Google is trying to acquire Motorola Mobility. Not because I think it will solve all the problems of Android – it’s far too early to say anything like it; but simply because, at last, Google has done something that might begin to address them.
I was fast coming to the view that Google was, if not completely clueless in the face of multiple patent assaults on its Android platform, at least pretty rudderless. When it eventually lost the battle for Nortel – after offering the most absurd bids that involved things like pi billion dollars – I really doubted it had any idea how serious things were getting.
The matter of fact is, Samsung is likely to become more heavily dependent on Linux, the main problem (or one among several) is that it pays Microsoft for Linux. The good thing is that Samsung — like HTC — is unwilling go do the same with Apple, whose embargo attempts against Galaxy Tab are failing [1, 2]. It looked very different earlier this month, but it didn’t last long for Apple.
Not so big now, are you Apple? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 6:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Intellectual Ventures’ connections to Lodsys are being shown to the judge by DriveTime, which also uses the recent NPR article (about Intellectual Ventures) as evidence
The Oracle vs. Google case that Groklaw keeps track of may as well be motivated by part of the cartel Google spoke about. We have already written very extensively about the relationship between Apple and Oracle. But another fascinating battle comes from Microsoft’s alter ego, Intellectual Ventures (IV), which is the world’s largest patent troll.
According to this new article from Groklaw, Lodsys may be also an “alter ego” of Intellectual Ventures, as we mentioned before [1, 2, 3, 4]. To quote Groklaw‘s Professor Webbink:
Lodsys – DriveTime Says It Suspects Lodsys is an “alter ego” of Intellectual Ventures, Asks to Do Discovery
DriveTime Automotive Group has filed a motion, Motion For Leave To Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery And To Stay Response To Motion To Dismiss, in its Arizona declaratory judgment action against Lodsys. That is a mouthful for saying they believe Lodsys does, in fact, have jurisdictional ties to Arizona (where DriveTime is located) and that they should be allowed the opportunity to conduct limited discovery against Lodsys for the purpose of proving that point before the court simply grants Lodsys’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
DriveTime is asking the Arizona federal district court to let it do discovery to flush out any Intellectual Ventures ties to Lodsys. DriveTimes says they “strongly suspect, as do others, that Lodsys is a spin-off and the alter ego of a company called Intellectual Ventures (“IV”), known as “patent troll public enemy #1.”
It quotes from the recent NPR article implying such a connection, and attaches it as an exhibit [PDF], and it describes how patent trolling works, saying that trolls often assert baseless claims, and it says that Lodsys’s claims against it are precisely that, baseless. So it would like to do discovery to flush out all the secret corners of the claim against it:
DriveTime seeks leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery because much of Lodsys’s licensing and enforcement efforts, and certainly its relationship with IV, are not a matter of public record. Specifically, DriveTime seeks permission to take written discovery and depositions on the following:
* (i) Lodsys’s licensing and enforcement activities in Arizona and/or with companies residing and/or doing substantial business in Arizona, including the nature of those licenses and whether they include any affirmative obligations on the part of Lodsys;
* (ii) Lodsys’s qualification as a patent troll that has attempted to manufacture jurisdiction in the Eastern District;
* (iii) the relationship between Lodsys and IV, and IV’s contacts with Arizona; and
* (iv) the baseless nature of Lodsys’s infringement claims in its cease and desist letters.
Such discovery will uncover facts to demonstrate this Court has jurisdiction over Lodsys.
If the judge agrees, it looks like we’ll finally get evidence one way or the other regarding the Intellectual Ventures’ connection.
There are all sorts of patent trolls at play and they are being used by real companies (with products) to launch legal attacks on the competition. This way they can pretend not to use their patents offensively and they cannot be sued back, either. One of the trolls which gets used by Apple and Microsoft is MPEG-LA, which is generally busy attacking Google, with support from Microsoft boosters. By E-mail correspondence we are starting to piece together an accurate picture of which company uses which troll/s. We’ll publish the details about this some time this year (some mail is explicitly confidential and some is out of date or inaccurate, so more research or organisation is required).
Yesterday Eben Moglen was quotes as saying that the “big challenge is software patents.
“Companies are acquiring munitions to destroy Linux. We’ve been preparing for this 2 decades…” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.16.11
Posted in Google, Patents at 9:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The argument against patent monopolies continues even though Google is buying its way into the patents club
WHAT Google did by buying a part of Motorola is far from ideal. Suddenly Google can be perceived as part of the problem, which is gigantic companies that amass many patents or need to pay a lot of money to join the racket that excludes small players. Regardless of Google’s decision, it is recognised by some big sites that =”The Patent System Is The World’s Biggest Threat To Innovation Today” and to quote the opening:
At the risk of stating the obvious, I’ll say this right up front: The patent system in both Europe and the United States is the biggest threat to innovation in the world today.
Rather than competing with each other on price and features, the biggest tech companies want to fight it out in court where some Luddite judge—rather than the market—can decide who wins and loses. By claiming that another company has violated some vague patent, one vendor can use the legal system to either block rival products from the market or demand hefty kickbacks (a.k.a. licensing fees) from their makers.
Glyn Moody says, “speaking as a mathematician, I certainly concur with the view that everything is “just maths” in a certain deep sense: that is, we believe that we can, *in theory*, use maths to describe anything that exists. But in practice, some bits are trickier than others.”
Here is a ket line: “This fundamental distinction between software patents and the other kinds is reflected in all the problems that are cited with the former: the fact that they are patents on knowledge, and the fact that you often can’t invent around such patents, because that’s like trying to invent around logic.”
Exactly.
What Google does quite correctly is that it tries to squash Lodsys’ software patents [1, 2, 3], but why did it not make an attempt to squash software patents as a whole? The third link there is the coverage from Groklaw, which is likely to be most accurate. It also speaks of reexamination of Paul Allen’s patents (another patent troll who also attacks Android using software patents).
Brian Kahin has this new piece which remarks on the patent situation in relation to Android. He begins thusly:
I recently wrote about the $4.5 billion auction for Nortel’s portfolio of 6,000 patents that went to a consortium that included Apple, Microsoft, and RIM (Blackberry) — three of four smartphone platforms. In the wake of this sale, Interdigital has contemplated monetizing its portfolio of 8,500 patents, perhaps even putting the company up for sale. Google announced that it has bought over 1,000 patents from IBM for defensive purposes. Perennial investor Carl Icahn suggested that Motorola cash in on some of its immense portfolio of 18000 patents. Analysts have noted that Kodak’s patents may be worth more than Kodak itself.
The value of these patents is not in the technology. These prices are being paid for the power to block others from using technology they have developed independently. Or for the power to block others from blocking you by threatening to block them from using their technology — “assertion” and “counter-assertion.”
The IT sector has learned to live with these practices at some cost, but the patent mania and litigation around smartphones is unprecedented. Nothing like this happened as the personal computer came of age. In Silicon Valley, suing for patent infringement was not part of the culture. Knowledge spread quickly and informally. Employees of rival firms socialized and exchanged ideas — and moved from company to company. The Valley’s unique form of social capital beat out the culture of control along Boston’s Route 128 and made Silicon Valley world famous.
Julian Sanchez also has this thoughtful piece titled, “When Are Patents Obvious?”
The more highly specialized professionals are in rapid communication with each other, the more likely it becomes that you’ll see innovations that are “obvious” because they involve combining various disparate kinds of incremental prior innovative steps, but which don’t have “prior art”—meaning nobody has taken that exact step before, because it required a bunch of other pieces to be in place before it was viable. So searching for “prior art”—if that means exactly the same preexisting invention—becomes a less reliable guide to what is “obvious” in the relevant sense. But as specialization increases, it also becomes vastly more difficult for a patent examiner with broadly relevant training (engineering and electronics, say) to use his own understanding and expertise as a guide to what is truly “obvious” to someone trained in the specifically relevant domain (say, engineering mobile cellular data networks). It’s increasingly unreasonable to expect even the smartest and most diligent examiner—even assuming away all the bureaucratic and institutional incentives to err on the side of granting patents—to judge the “obviousness” of innovations across an ever-proliferating array of subspecialties.
Timothy B. Lee goes even further by asking, ‘Are software patents the “scaffolding of the tech industry”?’
Quoting Lee’s conclusions: “Of course, it’s possible that the bankrupt company failed because its more successful competitors simply ripped off its technology and undersold it. But at least in software, this is not the common case. More often, many companies independently come up with similar ideas. The company that prevails is the one that executes best, not the one who came up with the idea first. Which means that the patent system simply transfers wealth from those who are good at building useful products to those who are good at navigating the patent system.
“Mace’s post is based on a similar fallacy. He argues that patents are good because they allow a small company like his to prevent a large company like Google or Apple from copying him. Obviously that’s valuable to him, but it’s not clear that it’s good for the economy as a whole.
“Companies have other ways to protect their innovations. They can use copyrights, trade secrets, and the head start that any inventor has over copycats. Mace objects that these protections aren’t adequate to guarantee that the original inventor will win in the marketplace. But that’s the point: consumers benefit from the robust competition that results when inventors have only a limited advantage over competitors. The first company to enter some market shouldn’t be able to simply rest on its laurels. Remember, Facebook was a “me-too competitor” in the social networking space; it’s a good thing that Friendster and MySpace weren’t able to stop Mark Zuckerberg from entering its market.
“The function of the patent system isn’t to maximize the profits of inventors. Rather, it’s to provide inventors with sufficient incentives to ensure they continue innovating. In software, the protections offered by copyrights and trade secrets are already more than adequate to produce a huge amount of innovation. As a bonus, these regimes are less cumbersome and less prone to frivolous litigation than patents.”
We rest assured that Google’s move might provide a short-term fix that assures the growth of Linux in mobile phones. In the long term, Google’s newly-acquired patents too need to be eliminated, along with all the rest. It’s the only way to serve justice that’s inclusive (includes small players and new entrants). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 8:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Team Microsoft provides a distraction to take people’s attention away from the news about Android getting more solid legal basis
WELL, guess what? It seems as though we correctly predicted this sale of Motorola to Google even a day before it happened. “It’s all about the patents,” says ZDNet in the headline and it is probably true. Motorola also gives Google a chance to fight Microsoft and Apple in court, defending Android from some insidious allegations, using counter-attacks with Motorola patents (Google inherits these legal cases which were invoked separately by Microsoft and Apple). Google is buying them at above real value and Google’s CEO explains why. Here is Google’s official statement. A lot has been written about this already, so we need not say much except that it harms the efforts to fix the patent system but probably helps Linux in the short term.
Here is where it gets interesting. Apart from some dishonest ‘journalists’ who try to spin this against Google, there are some dishonest people, such as a lawyer previously employed by Microsoft (who later spread some lies about Android), who talk nonsense to distract from the above news. It is proposed by Microsoft’s buddy Naughton that Google’s Android has GPL problems. Well, just google “Naughton microsoft” and you will get “Lawyer behind Android infringement claim has Microsoft ties” (he hid his Microsoft ties by deletion and later got caught doing this). We covered this at the time while some reposted known lies. Anyway, his latest decoy spawned some headline trolling [1, 2, 3] and a storm over nothing, possibly promoted by Florian Müller's 'spamming' of journalists. He is debunked in Slashdot and other such sites (waste of space and focus), including Groklaw which writes:
Attorney Edward Naughton of Brown Rudnick has written [ Part II] more misinformation about the GPL in yet another false prediction of Android’s doom. Once again Mr. Naughton takes a non-story and blows it out of proportion, and of course, FOSSPatents does its part to blow hot air into the story as well.
If the idea is to scare off potential Android OEM’s or purchasers of Android-powered phones, this sort of scare tactic is just rubbish. It has failed in the past, and it will fail this time.
People who don’t understand the GPL probably shouldn’t write about it, including lawyers. I’ll show you the mistakes in the article, and please note that while I am a member of the board of directors of Software Freedom Law Center, which will factor into this story, I speak only for myself and Groklaw, not for SFLC in this article.
Bradley M. Kuhn too has responded to this:
Unfortunately, Edward Naughton is at it again, and everyone keeps emailing me about, including Brian Proffitt, who quoted my email response to him this morning in his article.
As I said in my response to Brian, I’ve written before on this issue and I have nothing much more to add. Naughton has not identified a GPL violation that actually occurred, at least with respect to Google’s own distribution of Android, and he has completely ignored my public call for him to make such a formal report to the copyright holders of GPL violations for which he has evidence (if any).
Here is a summary of some responses:
Even as Google announced their acquisition plans for Motorola Mobility today, vague legal accusations were re-hashed by IP attorney Edward J. Naughton that imply that all Android manufacturers are at risk of losing their rights to distribute Android because of they did not comply with the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). But the head of the Software Freedom Conservancy states there are still, despite the arm waving, no legitimate claims made on Android GPL violation.
Actually, Naughton doesn’t just imply problems for Android vendors, he just comes right out and says it: Android manufacturers have already lost their licenses to distribute GPLed code inside Android.
“Not long ago, open source advocates sued more than a dozen major consumer electronics manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers had lost the right to use GPL’d software in their devices. It looks like the same could be said of Android: virtually every one is unlicensed,” Naughton wrote in his blog.
One of Naughton’s biggest cheerleaders, FOSSPatent author Florian Mueller, is also explicit in his own amplification of Naughton’s theories:
Nothing to see here then. Microsoft is still briefing its gang which includes lobbyists like Microsoft Florian, who occasionally communicates with Naughton as well. it’s just a coordinated attack on Android. You can only cry “Wolf!” twice. Why is anyone paying attention to those people rather than cover the real news, which is about Android gaining a patent shield against Apple’s and Microsoft’s patent cartel? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Deception, GNU/Linux, Google at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple caught lying in a way that can get Apple — not Android makers — deep in hot water for lying to the German judge
“‘Samsung vs Apple in Europe’ for dummies” is the headline of this analysis from LXer, which disappointingly enough cites a lobbyist against Android, Microsoft Florian. “For everybody who understands less about the current Apple/ Samsung battle in EU than I do,” writes the dutch author, “here’s my attempt to share the few things I understand with you. I’ll briefly discuss the situation in both Germany and the Netherlands. The article should be especially suited for those who cannot read Dutch / German and are not up to date with what has been happening the last few days.”
“This story is a good fit because the company is based on a marketing lie, a delusion, a distortion of reality.”Meanwhile, Dutch/German sources suggest that the whole ban was based on fabrication and that this battle remains to be played (the ban might get reversed). To quote Slashdot: “The Dutch site webwereld.nl has found incorrect evidence submitted by Apple (Google translation of Dutch original) in the EU design-right case against Samsung. In the ex-parte case, a German judge recently issued a temporary injunction against the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the whole EU except the Netherlands. The faulty evidence is a side-by-side picture of an iPad 2 and the Galaxy Tab. The Tab is scaled to fit the iPad2, and the aspect ratio is changed from 1.46 to 1.36, which more closely matches the iPad 2 aspect ratio of 1.3, according to webwereld.nl.”
Here is what IDG has to say. “It’s just getting worse for Apple,” remarks the person who gave the link. “Apple Offers Flawed Evidence in Lawsuit against Samsung” is the headline and “it appears that Apple has failed to provide the German judge with accurate evidence. At least one of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 pictures that Apple provided as evidence in the German case is either wrong or manipulated. Photographic evidence submitted by Apple, found on page 28 of the German complaint, shows two pictures: the iPad 2 and the alleged Galaxy Tab 10.1, accompanied by Apple’s claim that the “overall appearance” of two products is “practically identical.””
“Take a look at the pictures on the link — obviously the Galaxy picture was tampered with,” remarks the person who gave this link, “squashed down to make the Galaxy Tab 10.1 look to be shaped like an iPad2. What sleazy, lying assholes they have at Apple.” In our Wiki we have had a page titled “Apple Deception”. This story is a good fit because the company is based on a marketing lie, a delusion, a distortion of reality. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.14.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 6:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: As Linux grows ever more dominant on devices that grow at the expense of desktops, the proprietary software giants — along with their cartels and patent trolls — bully and blackmail Linux-supportive competitors
WE HAVE been receiving a lot of mail about patents recently. It increasingly seems as though patents, not technical merit, help determine winners and losers, or at least that’s what Microsoft and its cartel members hope for. Google has publicly complained about a Microsoft-Apple conspiracy and for its defence it ended up buying IBM patents and it might be buying InterDigital's patents, as still indicated in the news (“Patent Wars Heat Up as Google Courts InterDigital”). To quote one explanation: “Consistent with our previous note on Google’s rivals scooping up Nortel, a weak patent portfolio could adversely impact profit margins for Google. The margin decline could mainly happen due to higher licensing fees and royalty-based costs for patents that Android uses but does not own. Additionally, expensive patent lawsuits would only serve to distract the company from its daily operations and can hamper Google’s innovation-led practices and product development.”
As we recently saw (e.g. Apple-imposed embargo in Germany, Lodsys versus British developers), Europeans are very much affected by the illness of the USPTO and the anti-competitive practices it enables. “How the US patent mess affects European tech and startups” is a new article that touches on the subject:
If you’ve paid even the slightest bit of attention to technology news of late, you can’t have failed to have noticed that patents are a hot story right now. However, much of what is being discussed relates to US companies; what’s the situation on the other side of the Atlantic?
Software patents have been at the core of a number of high-profile battles lately. We’ve seen a number of companies banding together to buy up swathes of mobile patents in a move that could bring down Android as a popular operating system; it seems like just about every smartphone manufacturer is suing someone, if not all the others; meanwhile patent holding company Lodsys has threatened a wide range of targets, including small independent iPhone and Android developers, over alleged infringements of its patents, threatening their livelihoods.
Over in IRC and in E-mail we have been digesting a lot of information. It is material from people close to Apple and Microsoft, people who are personally familiar with the conspiracies because they were present. The whole tablet hype, for example, is wrongly being attributed to and associated with Apple, which knowingly ripped other people off and is now exploiting the gullibility of journalists. The real investors are frustrated as they receive neither money nor attribution. Forbes has a piece titled “Turn The Tables On Patent Trolls”, which ought to really portray Apple — not just patent trolls — as a leech and an exploiter. We will hopefully write a lengthy and well-researched post about the subject very soon (our informant is gathering the details, stressing that Apple and Microsoft are the major aggressors here). Quoting Forbes:
Practicing companies know this and are careful about initiating litigation. Traditional patent litigation is very expensive (often millions of dollars). It’s risky. And it’s dangerous – a defendant might counterattack with its arsenal of patents. As a result, patent litigation between companies that compete with each other is less frequent than it could be, a point that is often lost in the headlines.
Successful trolls have found ways to remove these traditional obstacles to suit. Most obviously, not making anything immunizes them against counter accusations of infringement. A liability in every other context, having nothing to sell is an asset for trolls. This is why patents are often worth more when a company is dead and has nothing to lose from patent counter suits, than when it is alive and does.
That definitely is the case with Microsoft too. The company is unable to sell Windows for tablets, so it is reaching out for patents and now blackmails those who succeed at selling tablets, primarily with Linux on them.
As we discussed yesterday (and we got interesting feedback about it), Motorola is claimed to have gone hostile, but sources tell us that it might be a daemonisation. It’s all based on a single verbal remark. To quote another source:
Google (NSDQ: GOOG) has enough of a headache dealing with the painful situation involving Android and the pace at which its partners are being sued for patent infringement. But imagine if members of the Android community turned against each other over patents, something that Motorola (NYSE: MMI) Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha appeared to threaten Thursday during remarks at a financial conference.
Jha made a note during Motorola’s last earnings call—which showed it struggling to keep up with other Android partners like Samsung and HTC—to emphasize Motorola’s patent portfolio. Given that it’s the company that invented the mobile phone, Motorola has an arsenal of mobile patents that other Android partners probably can’t match, which is one of the reasons why it has chosen to fight Microsoft and Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) in court as opposed to settling or signing licensing deals.
Motorola might in fact be looking to be acquired by Google or something along those lines. It is not unusual for companies that size to brag about their patents. According to one writer, Jeff Bezos “filed a patent with VP Greg Heart that covers tiny airbags that would deploy if you drop your cell phone, the Register reports (via Geekwire).” Does that mean that Amazon will sue companies? So far, we have not seen Amazon using patents too offensively, even though the company lobbies and lusts for software patents.
The EFF is increasingly getting involved in this area which is perceives as a threat. “If you thought bogus patent lawsuits were crazy now, just wait and see what might happen if a court rules the way two companies are arguing they should,” says one Web site. “The EFF has filed an amicus brief in two cases in which patent holders are arguing that they can drag third parties into patent lawsuits if those third parties do one part of a claim, while someone else does the rest. If you think about this, and are aware of current patent lawsuits, this is a horrifying prospect. Think Lodsys on steroids, where individual consumers could be sued for patent infringement, merely for making use of what a service provider offers. For example, in one of the two cases, Akamai is claiming patent infringement, and the issue is one claim in the patent. All of the steps of that one claim are handled by a third party… except for “tagging,” which is done by users. If Akamai’s argument holds, then users of Limelight’s services who do “tagging” could be liable for patent infringement without having any idea at all that they’re at risk, and without them even violating the vast majority of what’s claimed in the patent.”
Patents are not intended to promote anything. They are a protectionist measure. They slow down innovation and reduce competition. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.13.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 10:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A blogger alleges that Motorola’s Q2 earnings conference drops hints regarding Android extortion, just weeks after Carl Icahn and fellow hawks ‘stole’ the company’s board
Nokia entryism is easy to see because the new CEO of Nokia came from Microsoft and soon thereafter handed over the company to Microsoft's agenda, more or less neglecting Linux in the process (according to the latest news, the MeeGo phone won’t come to the US or even Germany). But what has been going on in Motorola is trickier to show because Microsoft sued Motorola (while Motorola said it would continue working with Microsoft).
Several weeks ago in IRC, one of our readers said that Icahn had approached Motorola and took control of part of the company, naming patents too. For those who did not notice what Icahn did in order to hand Yahoo! over to Microsoft, read our previous posts about this subject.
Earlier today, Slashdot appeared in several circles with a rather surprising headline. “Motorola To Collect Royalties For Android” it says, but the evidence defending this remains limited. The description/summary is weaker than the headline as it merely says that “It looks like Motorola wants to join in on the Android patent licensing fun enjoyed by Microsoft and others.” Given information we previously gave regrading what Icahn the bully had been doing behind the scenes inside Motorola, there’s no surprise there. Just like Yahoo! was brought to its knees by this shark, Motorola too is being pressured by Icahn to use its parents (this was in the news last month). But the headline from Slashdot is still baffling; It’s up for debate whether it is FUD.
The original report making the claim about Motorola is a tad weak. It is showing HP and Nokia in there too (the picture suggesting an attack on Android). Did we miss something? There is also a problem with the argument. It says that Motorola “is rapidly loosing it’s market share and significance in Android market,” which is very arguably true.
“Just like Yahoo! was brought to its knees by this shark, Motorola too is being pressured by Icahn to use its parents (this was in the news last month).”The following part seems more reasonable. The writer says: “Or is Sanjay just hinting Larry here: “You better buy us. Soon. You were ready to pay 4B+ for 6K Nortel patents, and we are worth 6.4B today.””
This is the followup post which we have more of a problem with. It says: “Amidst this Android patent insecurity, Motorola recently started touting the strength of its IP portfolio. Nothing surprising here. Motorola is one of the oldest players, with one of the strongest patent portfolios in the industry. Heck, they invented the mobile phone and have been at it for decades. If other mobile industry players decide to go after Motorola’s Android devices, Moto has a lot of patents to retaliate with.
“However, things made a turn for the worse few weeks ago. During its Q2 earnings conference call Motorola hinted that it is ready to join Android patent racket, and start demanding licensing fees for its IP from other Android manufacturers.”
The Q2 earnings conference is probably not official enough to merit the headline in Slashdot. In fact, unless there is more proof of a liaison around patents against Android, it may be safe to remain observant, also in th face of shameless Microsoft boosters like Florian the lobbyist and Eric Savitz the pretend "journalist", who smears of Google at the moment, trying to portray Google as a looter that “steals” because of its patents stance — an issue we last mentioned yesterday when we covered the opinion of Ubuntu’s Mark Shuttleworth, who alleged that patents are misunderstood, misused, outdated, as one site now paraphrases it. To quote: “Patents are archaic, misunderstood and of little or no help to the entrepreneur, according to Mark Shuttleworth, who leads the Ubuntu Foundation, which is behind the open source operating system. In an interview with TechCentral, Shuttleworth was asked about the escalating patent battle in the mobile industry and he provided some choice quotes.”
Shuttleworth is correct and so is Google. There is a cartel being set up against both of them. Ubuntu is already taxed by the MPEG cartel, which is backed by Apple and Microsoft. Does anyone still deny the importance/priority of eliminating software patents? █
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