Value for the money
4.5Bn can buy more on Capitol Hill than in court.
Apple, Microsoft, RIM, EMC, Ericsson and Sony all chipped in to buy the patents, which cover critical 4G and wireless broadband technologies, leaving Google empty handed. The companies announced the purchase last night, with RIM admitting it had thrown $770m in the pot and Ericsson pegging its contribution at $340m. The …
"The amounts contributed by the other parties aren't yet known but all will share in the ownership of the patents and, perhaps more importantly, the protection from litigation they offer."
If there were a game like bingo where the first person to observe this kind of thing and shout "cartel" won the round, there'd be just too many winners.
"Patent-watcher Florian Mueller concludes that this means Google isn't serious about Android"
Don't be too concerned: Mueller-watchers concluded a while ago that people don't take him seriously, either, what with the Google tunnel-vision, fancy diagrams and lawsuit voyeurism.
Alternatively, $4.5Bn can buy a *shitload* of lawyers.
Given that an awful lot of tech patents are from the department of the bleeding obvious (a friend I worked with in the US was responsible for a Ford patent that basically says "detect whether a gearbox is broken by knowing the gear ratio and comparing input and output shaft speeds". Or there's another car company who has a patent on cruise control doing closed-loop control by comparing desired speed against actual speed. I mean, FFS?!?!
If Google's answer is that they're not going to play this game, then I'm all in favour. They've got deep enough pockets that they can just say "come on if you think you're hard enough".
"Patent-watcher Florian Mueller concludes that this means Google isn't serious about Android, which seems a little harsh, but it does indicate a limit to the protection that Google is willing to provide."
Florian Mueller seems to really know a lot about this stuff. I have been reading his blog for quite a while and it is excellent. As a side note, a few days ago he referred to Paula Jones, though not by name, as a "notorious propagandist". (See his Jun 27, 2011 post where he dissects one of her posts in detail.)
@Turtle: Florian Mueller seems to really know a lot about this stuff. I have been reading his blog for quite a while and it is excellent. As a side note, a few days ago he referred to Paula Jones, though not by name, as a "notorious propagandist". (See his Jun 27, 2011 post where he dissects one of her posts in detail.) ..
"there's one propaganda site out there (with an apparent and long-standing bias in favor of certain companies) that previously wrote: "Oracle Ordered to Reduce Claims Against Google From 132 to 3". That was simply not true" ..
"Having reviewed the parties’ memoranda regarding the reexamination proceedings and the streamlining of this action, for which counsel are thanked, the Court proposes a three-step process, as below .. Oracle shall select no more than three asserted claims and Google shall select no more than eight prior art references for trial. All others will be forsaken .. IT IS SO ORDERED" ..
From Mueller's blog posting, mentioned above:
"This is what the judge wrote right at the start of that 'order':
Having reviewed the parties' memoranda [...], the Court PROPOSED a three-step process, as below. Each side may file a five-page (double spaced, twelve-point Times New Roman font, no footnotes, and no attachments) critique of the TENTATIVE schedule by NOON ON MAY 6, 2011. AFTER TAKING ANY CRITIQUES INTO ACCOUNT THE SCHEDULE WILL BE FINALIZED. [emphasis mine.]
In light of the above, which could hardly be any clearer, one had to be utterly obtuse or, like in this case, a notorious propagandist to claim that Oracle was actually ordered to reduce claims to any particular number. In reality, the final decision on this won't be taken until October."
Mueller then links to his posting of May 23, 2011, entitled "Oracle wins postponement of decision on number of asserted claims until pre-trial conference; judge reserves option of stay pending reexamination" found at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/oracle-wins-postponement-of-decision-on.html .
And here is Mueller's original posting on the subject, from May 6, the day after the Groklaw misinterpretation:
"Oracle strongly opposes judge's proposal for narrowing down claims against Google to 3, instead proposes 21 plus postponement of related decision
Yesterday many media reported on a tentative scheduling order of the judge on the Oracle vs. Google case, according to which Oracle would have to ultimately narrow down the number of patent claims asserted against Google from 132 to 3 in order to arrive at a "triable number" of claims, but most of the reports didn't make it sufficiently clear that it was just a proposal, not a procedural decision per se." ( http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/oracle-strongly-opposes-judges-proposal.html )
So tell me again, who understood what the judge wrote, and who didn't?
The quote from the judge's opinion is actually as follows:
"Having reviewed the parties’ memoranda regarding the reexamination proceedings and the streamlining of this action, for which counsel are thanked, the Court proposes a three-step process, as below. Each side may file a five-page (double spaced, twelve-point Times New Roman font, no footnotes, and no attachments) critique of the tentative schedule by NOON ON MAY 6, 2011. After taking any critiques into account, the schedule will be finalized."
Again note particularly the words "proposes", "tentative", and "will be finalized".
"Well, if you read around his blog, it's evident he's a paid Microsoft shill.
He's not a lawyer or a developer either, so I'd take his musings with a healthy pinch of salt."
Sure, because the fact that someone who reads Mueller's blog would have understood the reality of what the judge wrote, whereas someone who read that also-not-a-lawyer-or-developer Jones would not have understood, well that fact really has no bearing on the situation, right?
(Also news to me is the contention that developers have any particular understanding of the law beyond that of a layman.)
"Florian Mueller seems to really know a lot about this stuff. I have been reading his blog for quite a while and it is excellent."
Reading his blog? With such praise, it sounds like you've been writing it... wait a moment!
("Joke Alert!" needs 50% opacity because it's not necessarily a joke. Maybe FM has mastered the art of referring to himself in the third person under obscure aliases like "Turtle".)
...but I am concerned that Microsoft and Apple will be owners of these patents. Both of these companies have and currently offensively targeting companies with patent infringement court orders. I can see them both using these on the offensive to attack every Tom, Dick and Harry rather than keeping them for defensive purposes. I really hope Microsoft and Apple prove me wrong, otherwise it'll be a sad day for Android.
Therefore isn't it the responsibility of the device manufacturer to ensure it has all the licences.
Android is popular now, and there isn't much of an alternative for most manufacturers.
Also , android runs on lots of things that are not phones - so therefore wont need these 4G patents (you'd think).
It's a shame to see an inoovative company like Modu go under. I saw their products at the GSMA in 2008 (back when Android was nothing but whispers), and theirs were in my opinion the most innovative concepts for mobile phones at the conference.
Granted I have no idea about how well executed the final products were/would have been, but they seemed to be trying to create something genuinely new, which was a bit of a breath of fresh air.
> Patent-watcher Florian Mueller concludes that this means Google isn't serious about Android, which seems a little harsh, but it does indicate a limit to the protection that Google is willing to provide ..
If this is so then why are people like Microsoft not directly going after Google instead of signing patent protection agreements with Googles customers?
Here's what Groklaw has to say about Florian Mueller
Well Groklaw has a long history of dismissing people with divergent opinions as astro-turfers and shills, so their opinion on this matter signifies only that they find Mueller's and Microsoft's opinions to be ideologically unacceptable.
It should hardly need to be stated that there is a second, different reason for two opinions to coincide: they could both be the product of a good understanding of the situation.
odd, I'd have thought El Reg would have made more of the odd bets Google were making, the last being $3.14159!
More here http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/02/dealtalk-nortel-google-idUSN1E7601QM20110702?feedType=RSS&feedName=marketsNews&rpc=43, now to be fair, the fact that Google did that is just awesome.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021