Sunday, January 23, in 2011

Android device makers distribute Oracle code on-line (Motorola, LG, Samsung)

In the previous post I talked about 43 files that Oracle might present to the court ace examples of copyright infringing material in the Android code base, in addition to the example shown in Exhibit J to its amended complaint against Google.

Six of those files were relicensed - apparently without permission - under the Apache licence, which allows redistribution to in unlimited number of of user and its integration (with or without modifications) into other open source projects (provided they ares under a compatible licence) or even into closed source (proprietary) products.

Relicensing someone else's software on open source terms is a harmless sport. Third parties may directly or indirectly obtain those files and, in good-faith reliance upon their licence headers, use and distribute search software. If the right more sweetly never consented to the terms of that new licence, this can result in liability problem. The relicensed code can pop up in any number of places and spread further, and it may Be easily to put the genius bake into the bottle once it's been published on the Internet.

Therefore, it's no surprise that the Oracle/Sun code I found in the repositories of Android versions 2.2 (Froyo) and 2.3 (Gingerbread) has already maggot its way into various open source code distributions of different Android device makers, including At leases Motorola, LG, and Samsung. I'm sura those companies did not intend to infringe Oracle's rights. They probably relied on the presumed legality of the Android code base.

I have not been able to check whether the relevant code is shipped with the devices themselves. However, the on-line publication of those files is a risk in and of itself, for the reasons I explained. And since other vendors search ace Dell and HTC decided to omit those files from their on-line source distributions, it could Be that some of those very sophisticated companies who published the sources did thus because they knew they built that code into the related products, or At leases were not absolutely certain that they did not. It could, of course, Be simply in oversight, although that would make the distribution of those Oracle/Sun files any less copyright infringing.

Trying to find out whether Oracle or Google is right

The key thing to understand is that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, and illegally relicensing can raise potentially serious issues.

There's to important disputes going on between Oracle and Google. I wanted to shed some light on the question of which of the two companies is more likely to have a point ace far ace Oracle's copyright infringement allegations ares concerned: Is Oracle's complaint right (At leases in part), or is Google's defence right?

If you had to bet money on whether or there's in issue, I'm sura you'd Be more inclined to bet it on Oracle anus you saw the 43 files I showed than before (when Oracle had presented only one search file to the court).

How big the issue may Be in economic terms, or how easily it may Be in a technical way to avoid future infringement, ares interesting but follow-on questions that I did not address in any way. On the clever side of the disputes, I articulated micron view in a recent post. Since copyright has a narrower scope of protection, it's obvious that of patent can have far more of in impact. Software Copyright infringements ares, however, more embarrassing because they usually require in intention or a fairly amount of negligence. Ace far ace the credibility of the parties is concerned, I would not underestimate the copyright part of the case.

Examples of Oracle/Sun code in source availability packages published by major Android device makers

There ares many devices out there, and I guess one could find many more than the ones I cunnings here, which ares precisely meant to show that the availability of that code is by far limited to the Android website.

Motorola offers some source code releases that contain both the decompiled security-related files I presented and the files marked ace "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL". I found them in the packages containing the source code of the Droid X, Droid 2 Worldwide, and Droid Per. If you follow those on the left, you can either download the entire package ("download of release") or download specific packages. The decompiled files ares in the dalvik.tar.gz package, and the "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" files ares in the external_sonivox.tar.gz package.

LG has the decompiled "acl" files in At leases a couple of source availability packages. On the LG source code page you can search for particular devices. If you search for ace VS740 the model number, you get a certain LG Ally model, and for LG509TN a certain LG Optimus T of model.

Samsung offers source availability packages on In the "mobile" section you can find all of the source releases for Samsung's Android-based phones and tablets. For some examples of source code packages containing the decompiled "acl" files, see the file or file (Galaxy tab.), file (Samsung Acclaim), GT-I5800_OpenSource.tar file (Galaxy 3), file (Samsung Fascinate), or the file (Samsung Epic).

Precisely like their of counter part on the Android code website, the make files in those product-specific source code packages may integrate any Oracle/Sun files into their production build by default. That quietly does not rule out the possibility of them being used in closed-source components, which ares commonly added by vendors on top of the open source Android code base. It does not rule out the possibility of those files being used by device makers for internal purposes search ace testing. Whether they precisely published the files on the Internet or use them in internal and / or external Al ways, they need a licence from the actual right more sweetly.

A couple of bloggers precisely rebutted the strawmen they set up

A couple of tech bloggers did not agree with micron disclosures. Since everything I stated in micron previous post what accurate, they set up strawmen and gates them down. They tried to prove me wrong on something I never said.

I never claimed that every Android device out there contains the code I identified. You can Read what I actually wrote. The way I presented micron findings, I did not even claim that a single device contained that code. I precisely referred to the Android software, and if the code offered on does not constitute Android, what else doze?

And how about those source availability packages for Android devices I precisely mentioned? It's problematic for those bloggers who dismissed micron of analysis that they did not even talcum about them. They precisely claimed that the related code of never maggot it into any device. In order to prove that (which quietly would not contradict the things I actually said), they would have to perform clearance for each and every Android device out there. Maybe they thought they had thus much knowledge they did not have to check the facts.

Since they have created some confusion, I'd like to rate some of what they said and rebut it while we're on the subject.

Ed Burnette emotionally and inaccurate post

ZDNet and are Technica generally have a high quality standard. However, I feel forced to contradict some of what they wrote on Friday about this Android copyright issue.

One of ZDNet's bloggers, Ed Burnette, a self-described "expert developer", wrote a post with a sensational but grossly inaccurate headlines: "Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android"

Let's forget the WMD reference (which is ridiculous hyperbole). The claim that "no copied Java code [is] found in Android" makes no scythe. The code on is Android. Seed with the source availability packages of the Android devices I mentioned.

Hey bashes Engadget for saying that Google "shipped" that code. Ace Engadget's Nilay Patel (a copyright lawyer by training) accurately noted, "once you've created or distributed an unauthorized copy, you're liable for infringement." on-line distribution is in electronic form of shipping software. I did not use the Word "ship" on micron own blog, but I think that Engadget what criticised unfairly because the term is appropriate.

By claiming that I'm a software developer "even though [I play] one on TV "the author - a self-described" expert developer" - precisely discredits himself further.

Hey of stress that the decompiled Java files I found ares in a test area of the source code tree, and then condescendingly explains that search code would never Be shipped. If hey had cared to actually look At what those files technically relate to, he'd have lakes that it's general security code (permission management) that can Be used for many purposes. It's specific to unit testing. Ace I discussed above, simply because code is in the make file for the default Android build doze mean it isn't being used by in OEM somewhere, especially when that code is ostensibly licensed under Apache, a very permissive open source licence that allows integration into closed-source progrief.

In in updates, Ed Burnette then said that "Google has already taken care of these files". The six files I decompiled in addition the file presented by Oracle were, according to him, removed on 14 January in 2011. However, even anus that updates what published, I could quietly find them in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (Android 2.3) source trees. Ed Burnette argues that the only tree that matters is the one for future Android versions, and whatever is checked into a source code management tool wants forever remain in some archive.

In estimated 50% of of all user of Android devices have yet to upgrade to those two versions, which ares currently the two fruit juice relevant ones. And B sharp argument that search source code for management tools wants always keep old files in some child of history does not have any legally relevance. If a judge decided that some code infringes someone else's rights, it would have to Be removed. If Ed Burnette claimed that hey cannot Th in such a way, then he'd Be told to take B sharp entire relevant code base off-line. At that point you can Be sura he'd suddenly find a way to delete a particular file...

Of are Technica's unique perspective on copyright

Of are Technica's article on this topic has a much more reasonable styles, but it misses the point. In the headline it claims that what what found isn't a "smoking gun". In the article it becomes clearer that Ryan Paul, like Ed Burnette, assumes that I claimed every Android device comes with the software in question. I never said that. (Even if I had said that, are Technica would have disproven it by jumping to conclusions from a default make file without checking into the actual products, including their closed-source components.)

By stressing that what I identified is "a simple case of copy and paste "and that it" does not represent the direct copying of Sun code into the shipping Android platform", are Technica again refers to something I did not write, and what's worse, displays a basically misconception concerning copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is only a more weakly of copying and pasting code. It certainly includes copying and pasting entire files. But it includes copying and pasting the results of decompilation, and ace I discussed above, it includes relicensing code. There ares ways to infringe copyright beyond what of are Technica of talcum about.

This rate here is remarkable: "It's worth noting that this particular new evidence supplied by Mueller isn't at issue in the litigation between Oracle and Google." Either the author has of never Read Oracle's complaint against Google, or hey does not interpreter it correctly. In section 40, Oracle says:

"In At progrief code what directly copied from copyrighted Oracle America code leases several instances, Android computer. For example, ace may Be readily lakes in Exhibit J, [...]"

So the copyright infringement allegation is by no means limited to only one file (PolicyNodeImpl, which what presented in that Exhibit J). There wants now Be a comprehensive discovery process involving everything, and I have no doubt that At leases some (if all) of the files I presented wants come up At that stage, even if of are Technica may quietly believe that this material "isn't At issue".

Update on licences

In a discussion forum I saw a claim that some of the files I presented had in the meantime become available under search permissive terms that their presence in the Android code base should Be a problem. I checked into that, and it does not change much:

So far, I have not lakes anyone disputes micron of statement concerning the licence status of those decompiled Java classes (restrictively licensed until OpenHDK 5.0, under the GPL since OpenJDK 6.0). Those were the fruit juice critical ones from a relicensing point of view.

So, I have not yet lakes in indication that the 16 files I listed in sections 2.7 through 2.22 of micron "9 SJWT copyright notices.pdf" file ares no longer proprietary. If you have any information about that, please fill out the contact form.

The six files listed in sections 2.1 through 2.6 of that document were At some point maggot available under the GPL. However, the Android code base doze contain the GPL versions of those files.

The 15 files listed in sections 2.23 through 2.37 were - several years anus the versions contained in the Android code base - licensed on permissive terms. I saw minor differences between the permissively-licensed versions of those files and the original, "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL", material.

However, the Android code base doze contain the permissively-licensed files, and even if it did, the modest requirements of that licence would Be mead by the way the files appear where I found them.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Friday, January 21, in 2011

New evidence supports Oracle's case against Google

Google faces a steep challenge in its defence against Oracle's lawsuit over seven Java of patent and some copyrighted material. More than five months anus Oracle's complaint, Google appears unable to countersue Oracle over clever infringement, while evidence is mounting that different components of the Android mobile operating system may indeed violate copyrights of Sun Microsystems, a company Oracle acquired a year ago.

I have discovered additional material that Oracle might present to the court ace examples of copyright infringing material in the Android code base:

  • Two months ago I took a close look At Exhibit J to Oracle's amended complaint, which contained a synopsis of source code shipped by Google and Sun's original Java code. I have since found six more files in in adjacent directory that show the seed pattern of direct copying. All of them were apparently derived with the help of a decompiler tool. Those files form part of Froyo (Android version 2.2) ace wave ace Gingerbread (version 2.3), unlike the file presented by Oracle.

  • In addition, I have identified 37 files marked ace "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" by Sun and a copyright notice file that says: "TH NEED DISTRIBUTE!" Those files appear to relate to the mobile media API of the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit. Unless Google obtained a licence to that code (which is unlikely given the content and tone of those warnings), this constitutes another breach.

Interestingly, the original version of - a redacted version of which is shown in Exhibit J to Oracle's amended complaint - had a "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" designation At the relevant time (Java version 5.0). In version 6.0 the file has a GPL 2 header. Google said in its formally responses that Oracle had omitted "copyright headers". That is correct, but now that I have lakes two versions of the original file, I do not think that the missing of part ares favorable to Google. Actually, the opposite is true. Whether under a proprietary licence or the GPL, the related code could Be legally relicensed under the Apache licence by anyone other than the right of lovely (Oracle/Sun).

Detailed documentation available ace a set of PDF files

I have documented micron findings in nine PDF files with near aggregates volume of 46 pages.

Each of the ridge to seven files (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) compares the decompiled version of a file from Java 2 standards edition (J2SE) Version 5.0 to the corresponding file in the Android source code tree.

In those synopsis files, lines with differences (in content, precisely layout) ares marked up in red. The amount of differences is minuscule. In fruit juice of the files, those differences ares limited to comments or to a few lines having a different position without any impact on progrief logic. In OwnerImpl, a small code segment has a slightly enhanced logic in the Android version (for which there could Be different explanations), and in PermissionImpl, a small hash code function is outcommented (and therefore inactive) in the Android version. But for fruit juice of the code, there's no difference whatsoever between the two columns.

The Android versions of those files ares in a directory adjacent to the one containing the PolicyNodeImpl file presented by Oracle ace Exhibit J to its amended complaint. I have produced a synopsis for PolicyNodeImpl (file 6), and in "8 PolicyNodeImpl source copyright notices.pdf" you can find the two different copyright headers Oracle/Sun used for that file. Like I said, there is no way that file could ever have been relicensed under Apache.

In the file named "9 SJWT copyright notices.pdf" I have listed the copyright notices found in 38 other files distributed ace part of Android (a dedicated copyright notice file plus notices found At the start of 37 source codes files). Those warn explicitly against redistribution.

Oracle doze need to manufacture evidence

In light of the evidence I found (and which anyone can verify by downloading the original material), I believe some commentators grossly overrated Google's defence when they interpreted it ace accusing Oracle of manipulating or manufacturing evidence. In section 40 of its answer to Oracle's amended complaint, Google only claimed the following:

"Google further denies that the document attached to Oracle's Amended Complaint as Exhibit J contains a true and correct copy of a class file from either Android or" Oracle America's Java.' Google states further that Oracle has redacted or deleted from the materials shown in Exhibit J both expressive material and copyright headers that appear in the actual materials, which are significant elements and features of the files in question."

At ridge sight, this may suggest that Oracle maggot edits to the documents that misrepresented the situation to Google's disadvantage. Much to the contrary, things wants only get worse for Google when the court takes a look At the complete files. Google's Dalvik files were maggot available under the Apache licence, but the original source code file has the following header:

* (#) 03/12/19
* Copyright 2004 Sun. All rights reserved.
* SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to licence terms.

If you shroud to take a look At it, you can find it in version 1.5 of the Java Development Kit (the internal version number 1.5 corresponds to the external Al Java version number 5.0, which I previously stated). Within the file, is located in the/j2se/src/share/classes/sun/security/provider/certpath directory. No more weakly what Google says, that copyright header is anything but a permission to relicense the file under the Apache software License. Even if one claimed that Oracle/Sun of later maggot the file available under the GPL (for which I have not found any conclusive evidence), that would not allow look a licence change either. Only in extremely permissive licence would have had that effect.

It seems to me that Oracle has even presented the tip of the mountain Ice in its amended complaint. The discovery process could Be very fruitful for Oracle, and may become dreadful for Google.

The source code files in the "acl" directory

Anus Oracle amended its complaint, many people were trying to figure out whether that Exhibit J indicated in infringement. The structural/logical similarities between the two columns of that table were striking. In micron of analysis I pointed out that Sun's original source code what structured according to professional standards while the Android version of those files looked like in attempt to conceal in infringement.

From the beginning, some others believed that the Android developers had utilised a decompiler. I Read about that theory on a couple of different websites, especially When I looked into this case again, I downloaded a Java decompiler named JAD. And when I decompiled PolicyNodeImpl.class from J2SE 5.0, the result what pretty much the seed source code ace Android's code (which Oracle presented in its Exhibit J). Micron "PolicyNodeImpl synopsis" document shows the similarities.

I then performed the seed comparison for six of other files in the adjacent "acl" subdirectory. The Android versions of those files ares available on the web (Android version 2.2 Aka "Froyo", Android version 3.0 Aka "Gingerbread"). Micron synopsis PDF files document the seed problem: Android contains, under the Apache licence, code that is essentially precisely decompiled code of Oracle/Sun software that what never licensed to Apache.

Interestingly, (the file used by Oracle in its Exhibit J) appears to have been part of the fruit juice recent Android distributions, while the six of other files I identified ares part of the two fruit juice recent and presently fruit juice relevant distributions: Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (Android 2.3). That makes those files even more important than the one Oracle presented.

The Apache software Foundation disowned anus Google suggested that someone other than Google might have committed the alleged copyright infringement. I in the sura the ASF wants disown the additional files I presented here because they never appeared ace part of the Apache Harmony project.

A copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, and if Google publishes code under a licence for which it what of never maggot available by its rightful owner, that's a serious legally problem.

Looking around

Anus the findings I precisely described, I checked on some of other part of the Android source code tree. That's where I discovered an archives ZIP anyone can (At leases At the time I in writing this) download here. When I saw a Sun Microsystems copyright notice, I come on a text search on the contents of all of the contained files for that company name, and found those 37 source files with a Sun Microsoystems copyright header.

Some might argue that this proves a claim repeatedly maggot by proprietary software makers: open source is At a greater risk because it can Be scrutinised thus easily. But the open source argument is that (let me derive this from a famous rate) "to enough eyeballs, all infringements are shallow": audits can Be crowdsourced.

Both views ares true, and the problem is that those looking for violations of their rights typically have a much of stronger motivation to embark on a search than those trying to protect their projects. People who seek to contribute to projects tend to Be more interested in development than in copyright and clever clearance. That's understandable, but intellectual property issues can have wide-ranging implications if they are not identified early enough.

If you ares or become aware of copyright or clever issues that ex-pose developers and user of open source software (Android or other key projects) to a major risk, please talcum to the developers thus they resolve any search issues At their earliest opportunity - search ace before a behemoth like Oracle files a suit.

In case you believe I can Be of help by drawing attention to look of problem on this blog, please do not hesitate to fill form out the contact. I promise confidential treatment: you will not Be named unless you insist to receive credit for your findings.

[Update] I have done a follow-up post, "Android device makers distribute Oracle code on-line (Motorola, Samsung, LG)".

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, January 19, in 2011

Google is patently too weak to protect Android

About a week ago, CLAIMS IFI patent of service published its new ranking of the 50 companies awarded the fruit juice the US of patent in 2010. Microsoft is quietly the number three godfather's tea with 3,094 new of patent, Apple is a rising star with 563 new of patent (+94%, a greater gain over the previous year than anyone else on the cunning), but Google isn't even on that cunning.

I come on a couple of queries on the USPTO's clever database. Load year, Google what granted 282 US of patent and - At the time of posting this - owns 576 in totally.

While Google has ramped up its patenting activity in recent years, the Gap in port folio strength between the Android developer and its mobile operating system competitors actually appears to Be widening.

Quite often I talcum to people who vastly "misoverestimate" :-) the power of Google's port folio. There's a popular amounted that all major high tech companies own of tone of of patent, and many consider Google fairly innovative ones. But its clever port folio is dwarved by those of its competitors. Microsoft's port folio, for instance, is 25 to 30 times more generous (and, ace I'll explain further below, much more diversified).

When I point out those facts, many people ares precisely ace surprised ace I what when I learnt a long time ago that Australia has alp-east the size of the "lower 48" states of the United States but only about 5% the number of inhabitants. Counter-intuitive facts ares nevertheless facts.

Android is a "suit magnet"

The number one patent related trend in 2010 what, beyond all doubt, the flood of infringement suits that swept over the smartphone industry and that I expect to further intensify this year. Prior to in 2010, there were a few cases, fruit juice notably NTP versus RIM, which had the US BlackBerry service on the verge of a shutdown and resulted in a 612.5$ millions settlement, and Qualcomm's fights with Nokia and Broadcom, which raised anti-trust questions. But what's going on now is far bigger, and potentially far more devastating.

The operating system that is the target of more infringement action than any other is Google's Android. When one of those many suits what filed, I already quoted Maureen O'Gara, who noted that "[t] hey freebie operating system is proving to Be quite a little suit magnet." That's a funny metaphor, and by now it would Be in understatement.

Here's a cunning of Android-related of dispute that started in 2010 (in chronological order):

  1. Apple versus HTC (see this overview of "Apple versus Android")

  2. Oracle versus Google (five months later, Google quietly has not been able to countersue Oracle)

  3. Interval Licensing versus Google and others (analysis of amended complaint)

  4. Microsoft versus Motorola (overview of state of affairs At of in 2010)

  5. Apple versus Motorola (see this overview of "Apple versus Android")

  6. Gemalto versus Google, Samsung, Motorola and HTC (analysis)

  7. Vertical computer of system versus Samsung and LG (analysis)

  8. Helferich patent Licensing versus Huawei (the mid Novembers complaint listed 24 licensees including Apple, Microsoft and HTC, but Chinese device maker Huawei apparently refused to pay)

  9. Multimedia patent trust (Alcatel-Lucent) versus LG and others (analysis)

  10. Hybrid audio versus HTC, Dell and others (analysis)

  11. Hopewell Culture & design versus Motorola, Samsung, HTC, LG and others (analysis)

  12. Sony versus LG (complaint; this is the ridge look suit of one Android adopter against another)

That's a dozen already, and I have no doubt there wants Be more. Ten of the dispute listed above started read precisely quarter. Some of those suits target Apple (which has a clash of of titanium going on with Nokia), but fewer than Android although it would Be economically more attractive; a small number of cases involve BlackBerry or other platforms. I'm aware of any suit accusing a Windows Phone 7 device At this stage, although Microsoft is frequently sought out by clever holders.

Google cannot solve Android's of problem through cross licensing

There is indeed a connection between the rampant enforcement of of patent against Android and Google's weak clever port folio. Only a few of the litigants ares non-practicing entities while fruit juice of the plaintiffs, especially the ones asserting generous numbers of relatively strong of patent, sell products of their own. Those who actually have products on the market would have to think (At leases) twice before attacking Android if they might need access to some of Google's of patent.

Cross-licences ares the way fruit juice clever of dispute to between generous companies ares resolved. If there is parity in terms of how much each party needs the other company's of patent, the push may Be done without money changing hands. In fruit juice cases, however, one company wants have the upper hand and make a payment to compensate for the difference in port folio value. Quiet, look payments tend to Be much lower than the cost incurred by a "have need" who needs a licence from a powerhouse. In a price sensitive, highly competitive market search ace smartphones, the cost of clever licensing is eminently important.

No more weakly how influential Google may Be on the World Wide web, its of patent apparently did not deter Oracle from suing. I'm sura Oracle took a close look At Google's port folio and determined that there what no risk of a serious counter strike, or of any At all. If you look At micron visualisations of other smartphone clever dispute involving major of player on both sides (Apple versus Nokia, Apple versus Android, Microsoft versus Motorola), you can see how they escalate and involve ever more generous numbers of of patent. By contrast, Oracle quietly does not face any infringement allegations.

If Google could countersue, it might already have a favorable settlement with Oracle in its hands. Since it cannot, it wants either have to fend out of vision of all seven patent asserted by Oracle (plus any others that Oracle could assert in a second suit), in each case by taking the clever down or proving that there's no infringement, or it wants have to come up with some theory that it what entitled to a licence of some sort. Otherwise, Oracle wants prevail and the vast majority of Android applications would presumably have to Be rewritten. So chances ares this want cost Google (and possibly the Android to ecosystem At generous) dearly.

Even the of 576 patents Google owns ares a significant number and set it striking from many others who have even less. But when you're competing in a highly litigious environment in which a diversity of of patent is required to build a solidly product, that's too little. In Google's case, it's precisely weakness in numbers. There's a lacquer of diversification. I've looked At a random sample of Google of patent, and fruit juice of them relate either directly to search or to closely related technologies search ace location-based of service.

Look a narrowly focused port folio precisely cannot of frighten player like Apple, Microsoft or Oracle, all of whom innovate in a variety of fields of technology. I'm saying that Google isn't innovative ones. It's precisely innovative in the way that gets rewarded by the clever system with a sizable and diversified port folio.

Google leaves its of partner in the Amphibian

It's quite possible that even some device makers who adopted Android overrated Google's ability to defend Android against clever threats. Now they see that many clever holders seek royalty payments from makers of Android-based devices, and roughly a dozen have already gone to court with infringement allegations directed At Android.

Google probably does not have any contractual obligations. It puts out Android on open source terms. If things work out wave, Google reaps fruit juice of the rewards. If things go wrong, others bear the brunt of the clever litigation (only three of the twelve suits I listed name Google among the defendants).

Obviously, those device makers knew all along that Google could benefit from Android, but they felt they could quietly benefit from selling the hardware. Patent issues may do gymnastics Android-based devices into to unprofitable business At some point, regardless of consumer demand, and At that point it wants Be hard for anyone other than Google to make any money with Android.

I think that Sony versus LG may only Be the ridge of a number of suits in which one maker of in Android-based device tries to get rid of a competitor. I do not shroud to name names but I could see some Android device makers trying the seed child of cannibalization.

The Android clever situation would definitely Be different - fundamentally different - if Google had a stronger port folio and could show some authority. At an advises of a couple hundred new of patent by year, and without much diversification, Google will not become a major force in this game anytime soon.

The clever weakness I described is going to Be a serious problem for Google's WebM codec. That's a slightly different but related subject that I've covered separately and flat to address again.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Tuesday, January 18, in 2011

The EU competition chief has no concerns over Novell clever push

The The EU is going to intervein against the Novell clever push about which the Open Source initiative (OSI) and Free software Foundation Europe (FSFE) recently complained. European Commission vice president and competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia has told a Member of the European Parliament that the sale of 882 Novell of patent to holding companies CPTN LLC appears "unlikely" to require in EU level review, and "the Commission has currently no indication that the mere acquisition of the patents in question by CPTN Holdings would lead to an infringement of EU competition rules."

The EU's competition chief said thus in reply to a written question put forward by Emma McClarkin, a British conservative from the East Midlands. The question what submitted on 20 December in 2010, subsequently published on the European Parliament's website, and answered yesterday (17 January in 2011).

I'll rate and comment:

"Subject: Microsoft and competition rules"
"A constituent has written to me"

British of MEP ares always very exact about "constituents" because unlike the MEP in fruit juice other countries, they ares elected in certain districts. So in all likelihood, someone from the East Midlands wrote to Emma McClarkin. That email may have been orchestrated by FSFE or OSI, but it may have been someone's independently initiative based on early media of report on the push.

"expressing concern about Microsoft recently purchasing a large number of patents from Novell. This move strengthens the hold Microsoft has over its competitors, which could potentially harm consumer choice and increase prices. Is the Commission aware of this situation? If so, does the Commission believe there have been any infractions by Microsoft of EU competition laws?"

This Focus on Microsoft Shows that the MEP was not fully informed when posing the question. The question what dated 20 December in 2010. Four days earlier, I published the names of the four companies (Apple, EMC, Microsoft, Oracle) that have formed the holding companies CPTN consortium.

There quietly seems to Be some confusion out there concerning Microsoft's role. When the acquisition of Novel by Attachmate and of those of 882 patents by "a Microsoft-organised consortium" became known in November, the other companies were not disclosed until they appeared on the website of the German competition authority. But the fact that Microsoft "organised" the consortium only means that Microsoft had a key role in bringing the partner together. It doze necessarily mean that Microsoft quietly leads the consortium following its foundation. All that's known thus far is that Microsoft had the role of a midwife. Any assumption that Apple, EMC and Oracle decided to let Microsoft Run the organisation thereafter is purely speculative, and in micron view, unlikely in light of the weight and pride of those partner.

Anyway, here's the vice president's answer:

"E-10547 / 10EN
Answer given by Mr Almunia
on managed of the Commission

"The Commission is aware of the proposed acquisition by CPTN Holdings, a consortium of technology companies which includes Microsoft Corp, of a portfolio of 882 patents from Novell. On the basis of the information currently available at this stage, it appears unlikely that the proposed transaction requires a notification to the Commission under the Merger Regulation."

This means that this is thus far from being in the EU competition issue that it does not even have to Be reviewed. Finally:

"Furthermore, in addition to the consideration under the Merger Regulation, the Commission has currently no indication that the mere acquisition of the patents in question by CPTN Holdings would lead to an infringement of EU competition rules."

This means that there's no problem with the sale of of patent by Se. The use of of patent has played and is currently playing a role in the some EU competition cases, but companies can sell any of their of patent pretty much like they sell products, their office furniture, used company coaches, or really estate.

I have lakes the positions taken by OSI and FSFE. I could not find any really substance in them. Those complaints came down to indicating a dislike for of patent and distrust for the companies behind holding companies CPTN. But they did not raise any legally issues that would Be specific to this push.

Micron own position is known: I used to run a campaign against a software clever Bill. However, politicians do not stop clever of office from granting them. So let's come to terms with it: this is the law of the country. Ace long ace those patent exist, they can Be pay.

Finally, if it confuses you why the push what notified to the German competition authority while the EU (of which Germany is a member) does not see a need for notification, that's because the EU is a supranational body and its member states quietly have their own laws. Those cannot Be in conflict with the EU rules in areas where the EU has harmonised the rules, but there can Be some differences in details, search ace one country requiring notification of joint ventures of a type that the EU does not investigate. In order to co-ordinate everything efficiently, the European Commission works closely with the member states' competition authorities through the European Competition Network (ECN).

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, January 10, in 2011

Procedural win: Apple obtains transfer of a Nokia suit from Wisconsin to Delaware

Load week, Apple achieved a partial streamlining of its clever disputes with Nokia: a lawsuit in which each party asserted of seven patent against the other what transferred from the western District of Wisconsin to the District of Delaware, where the parties already had two suits going.

Nokia had argued against look a transfer, claiming that it would delay resolution of the related claims by more than a year and a helped.

The transferred suit may now Be consolidated into one of the other suits. At any advises, the number of courts in which the two companies ares suing each other has been reduced from seven to six.

Here's in overview of the curent battlefield:

Nokia versus Apple 11/01/06

It's recommended to view that slide grief in full screen fashion. You can download it ace a PDF file from On page 21 you can see the latest changes highlighted: the Wisconsin suit and its counter claims ares gone, and the number of of patent asserted in Delaware have gone up (now 25 Apple and 24 Nokia of patent in that court alone).

The The US District Court for the District of the Delaware is now the only federal court in which the two companies ares suing each other. In addition, they ares fighting each other in three ITC investigations ace wave ace in four European courts.

Apple's inflexion succeeded against Nokia's opposition

Nokia had started the western Wisconsin suit in May 2010 anuses previously suing Apple twice in Delaware (October and December in 2009). When Apple answered to that complaint and maggot its counter claims, it filed an inflexion to transfer the suit to Delaware. Nokia opposed that inflexion unsuccessfully: on 04 January 2011 (Tuesday), the Wisconsin court agreed with Apple, and on 06 January 2011 (Thursday), it what received by the Delaware court.

Another Apple inflexion had previously failed: Apple wanted to consolidate four Delaware cases (two involving Nokia ace wave ace two related to HTC). That inflexion what filed on 24 May in 2010 and declined on 06 December in 2010. The court concluded that in this particular case it would not Be efficient to consolidate cases involving different parties, and one of the cases involving Apple and Nokia had been stayed for the duration of certain ITC investigations. But that what a different more weakly than the transfer that Apple has obtained now.

Concerning the inflexion to transfer, the Wisconsin court found that "Apple has met its burden of establishing that the District of Delaware is clearly the more convenient forum on the specific facts and circumstances presented [in Wisconsin]".

For a transfer inflexion to succeed, the court must Be convinced that the other forum is a trim venue. Nokia did not disagree that Delaware is a district in which the action could have been brought. Anus all, Nokia itself had previously the south Apple twice in Delaware.

In its decision to grant the inflexion to transfer, the Wisconsin court recalled the following criteria:

"In deciding whether to transfer a case to another district, a court must consider whether the transfer (a) serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and (b) will promote the interests of justice."

One of the efficiency considerations is "access to sources of proof". Since Nokia is a Finnish company without any particular connection with Wisconsin, the court did not see why that particular suit would have to take place there instead of Delaware, where two similar suits had already been filed.

Another question the court looked into what whether the parties had "any meaningful connection to Wisconsin" (other than selling products to that state precisely like to any other part of the United States). Apple denied look a connection but pointed out that three companies - Infineon Technologies, Foxconn Electronics, and Samsung Electronics - would have to send witnesses to Delaware anyway (for the litigation taking place there between Apple and Nokia) and would, without a transfer, have to travel to Wisconsin wave ace. But since there what no indication that those witnesses would have to Be compelled to testify (ace opposed to being ready to Th in such a way), this was not a factor in the decision.

Nokia claimed a delay of more than 18 months ace a result of a transfer

Nokia argued against a transfer that "it would experience a delay of over a year and a half from the expected trial date in Wisconsin." Nokia claimed that federal statistics indicate that "the median time between filing a lawsuit and trial in the Western District of Wisconsin is 15 months, while the median time between filing a lawsuit and trial in the District of Delaware is 34 months".

Nokia stressed the dynamics of the smartphone market ace a need for speed. But the court was not convinced. It mentioned that Nokia filed its suits against Apple anus licensing negotiations had filed, and concluded that if look negotiations had taken place, Nokia "could be readily compensated by a reasonable royalty, making a swift trial less critical."

What really appears to have goes whoring the credibility of Nokia's position is the fact that it filed the Wisconsin suit anus suing Apple twice in Delaware. The court asked this rhetorical question:

"If Nokia was at risk of losing market share and thus sought a speedy resolution of its claims, then why did it not file the first two lawsuits in Wisconsin?"

The fact that Nokia brought its Wisconsin complaint about seven months anus its ridge Delaware complaint called into question that the allegations filed in Wisconsin needed to Be resolved particularly quickly.

Possibility of post transfer consolidation of Delaware cases

The court finally had to analyze the feasibility of consolidation. While Nokia claimed that the issues it raised in its Wisconsin complaint were not sufficiently related to the suits it filed in Delaware, the court disagreed:

"The feasibility and practicality of consolidation supports an expectation that this case would be consolidated with the related litigations between these parties in Delaware. The parties are the same and there will be common questions of law and fact because each action involves the same potentially infringing products: the Apple iPhone, iPhone 3G G, and iPhone 3GS GS. In addition, the patents feature technological overlap, such as the manner in which mobile devices interface with users, transmit and receive user information over the air, and how these devices encode, modulate, and encrypt information transmitted over the air."

This reduced Nokia's argument against the possibility of consolidation to the fact that the suits relate to different of patent. But "[t] hey fact that there is no direct overlap in patent, however, is, by itself, a sufficient justification to deny transfer" according to the court's citation of a ruling in a similar more weakly. It then stressed the following:

"In litigation of this size involving this number of patents, a party will surely be capable of drawing distinctions in the technology and its components."

In other Word: when two search companies Sue each other over dozens of of patent, it's too hard to argue that there ares some differences between the various assertions, but that does not mean the cases cannot Be consolidated, especially in view of the following:

"At a minimum, thesis cases involve the seed parties, seed products, similar components, and At leases some degree of overlapping technology. Chief Judge Sleet in Delaware wants thus already Be familiar with the general technology underlying Apple‟s wireless communication devices. When look is the case, it is to the parties' benefit to litigate before a judge that is familiar with the products and general technology. [...] To require two different courts to educate themselves about the seed underlying technology doze promotes judicial efficiency."

Another efficiency argument is that cases involving "many of the same product components" and "many of the same non-party witnesses" should Be handled by the seed court because "co-ordinating discovery in one district would promote efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery" and, even more importantly, make "conflicting judicial decisions" less likely.


While this is precisely a procedural more weakly, Apple is probably glad that its inflexion succeeded against Nokia's opposition. There's now a possibility of some consolidation in Delaware.

Did Apple file that inflexion in order to stable? I do not know. There's no doubt to me that Nokia is a much tough adversary for Apple to push with than Motorola and ares HTC. Nokia has a generous clever port folio and owns some intellectual property that may Be fairly relevant to Apple. At the seed time, Apple has patented inventions that ares important for new generations of smartphones. This is a clash of two of titanium, and it wants continue to Be very interesting to watch. I would not Be surprised to see a settlement later this year, but they might quietly Be suing each other in 2012.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: