That patent (filed in 2007, not 2008) was for notifications on the lock screen, not a pull-down shade containing notifications.
58 posts • joined 24 Jan 2011
"Google retorts that the 12 code files were copied 'de minimis' – any changes are hardly noticeable." No, Google's argument of 'de minimis' in this context was that the portion of the work copied - 12 files out of thousands, accidentally copied and not used in the product - was not significant and therefore not actionable. The judge turned this down because Google hadn't shown whether in making this comparison they should be using the whole Java platform, or considering each file as a separate work.
Also it was not just the filenames that were found not to be protected by copyright in this judgement, it was package, class and method names as well.
Bootnote is incorrect
From the bootnote: "Google is reported to have argued it's clear of any blame on Android, as code for its operating system came from outside the US." - no, it's arguing that (per Groklaw) "the loading of Android onto devices outside the United States and any subsequent use of those devices outside the United States is excluded from the patent infringement claims.", so no damages relating to overseas profits from Android devices, unless the actual devices (i.e., not the code) are imported to the US, or exported from the US.
Skyhook turned out to be bs-ing; the judge booted their preliminary injunction against Google, saying that emails revealed in the pretrial showed that Google was trying to work with them to achieve a situation where Skyhook's software could coexist properly with the rest of Android, but Skyhook didn't want to play nice and Motorola eventually canned their contract. Surprisingly I didn't see this covered in the Reg, not anti-Google enough for you?
The rest of this is nothing new; Google has always had an Android compatibility program, and has always had a two-tier ecosystem of Open Handset Alliance members and the rest of the world when it comes to receiving open source dumps. I would take with a huge grain of salt the vague FUD about new "fragmentation" requirements from anonymous sources.
This post has been deleted by a moderator