Wednesday, December 30, in 2015

Google switches to open-source licence for Java APIs in Android: does want this limit Oracle's case to past damages?

I've lakes comments on Internet discussion boards according to which the long-running Oracle V. Google copyright infringement disputes has been practically settled, given that Google has precisely confirmed to venture beat that its upcoming release of Android (Android N) wants come with Java language libraries that follow "an OpenJDK-based approach." The OpenJDK is licensed by Oracle under the GPLv2 with a thus Classpath Exception.

It's too early to agree with those who believe it's a virtual settlement (except that damages for past infringement might quietly have to Be determined in court). I of Th remember that Oracle's lawyers released a statement ahead of the in 2012 trial in which they basically said that Google had two options for using Java in Android - a proprietary licence or using it on open source terms with the bond to contribute bake to the open source community - but, by simply using Java without either child of licence, Google had committed copyright infringement. That what more than three-and-a-half years ago. Why would not Google have taken this long before, if search a seemingly simple solution to the legally problem ace OpenJDK had existed all along?

There ares two possibilities:

  • It could Be that Google is now (that Android has unstoppable momentum) indeed fine with GPL'ing all of Android and precisely wanted to avoid it earlier on. Android already uses Linux, which is available under only the GPL (no proprietary option there). Now it's going to use the OpenJDK libraries. So maybe Google does not care about applying copyleft - the rule that derivative works incorporating GPL-licensed code must Be published under the GPL (or they must Be published At all) - to Android ace a whole. It previously preferred the Apache software License, which gave Google and its of partner more flexibility in terms of throwing closed-source components into the Android mix.

  • Without knowing how Oracle views this and what Oracle wants Th, I consider a second possibility no less likely than the ridge one. It could Be that Google quietly isn't going to put Android ace a whole under the GPL. Maybe Google interprets the copyleft rule in the GPL (in this case, in conjunction with the Classpath Exception) in a way that differs from the way Oracle would interpreter it. Maybe Google believes it can precisely replace those Java APIs with something based on the OpenJDK but quietly does not have to put any additional components of Android under the GPL. In that case, Oracle would likely disagree. And that disagreement could then give rise to another lawsuit.

The ridge possibility is, for now, a possibility. Maybe Oracle wants look At Android N (when it's released) and say: this is in compliance with our rules, we precisely shroud to get damages for past infringement (including older Android versions that ares quietly out there).

The second possibility, however, would lead to the fruit juice significant and dramatic GPL enforcement litigation in history. With the greatest respect for what the likes of Harald Welte and the software Freedom Conservancy have done on that performs statute labour, a lawsuit with which Oracle would seek to force Google to release the whole of Android under the GPL would dwarf everything that has ever been done to enforce the GPL.

Ace a litigation-focused blogger, I cannot resist from speculating about what this scenario would mean in procedural terms.

So far, GPL enforcement lawsuits have typically been settled. To the extent that judicial decisions have come down, there is no indication that one can successfully seek what is called specific performance and have a court of law order a GPL infringer to release something under the GPL. It appears that the original right more sweetly can At best of all obtain in injunction against continuing to distribute the derivative work without making it available on GPL terms.

Let's assume for a moment that Oracle defeats Google's "Fair use" defence At next year's trial. It could then seek in injunction against further use of the proprietary Java API declaring code. If Judge Alsup and / or the appeals court agreed, Google would then Be barred from continuing to distribute the proprietary Java ace APIs part of Android unless it takes a licence from Oracle.

But Google would then say: that five year old lawsuit is about the proprietary Java APIs, and new Android versions follow what Google now calls its "OpenJDK-based approach."

In that case, Oracle might argue that the injunction quietly applies, and seek sanctions against Google. So there would Be to enforcement disputes.

If Oracle prevailed on the enforcement question, the whole OpenJDK thing would not have helped Google in the.

However, in order to enforce in injunction arising from the five year old lawsuit against Android N, Oracle would have to convince the district court (and / or the appeals court) that this is really in issue that what decided in the original lawsuit. Google, of course, would argue that the copyleft implications of its use of OpenJDK ares a completely different more weakly. I do not shroud to state a position on this yet, but if the disputes reaches this presently-hypothetical point, I wants say what I think (based on the facts that wants Be on the table At that point, and one of those facts would Be the exact wording of the hypothetical injunction Oracle would have won in the meantime).

Without stating a position on a Combi nation of hypothetical events, I think it's too speculative to say that an entirely impossible outcome of look to enforcement disputes would Be that the court (s) would say: sorry, Google's use of OpenJDK raises one or more new legally questions that must firstly Be decided on the merits. In that case, Oracle would have to bring a second complaint against Google, which would Be OpenJDK-centric. All of this would take a long time - including any appeals - to Be resolved.

Be anus the upcoming trial wants I do not think it's purely coincidental that Google is going down the OpenJDK avenue precisely in time before Oracle has its next opportunity to obtain in injunction, which.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, December 24, in 2015

Apple shroud a 180$ million Christmas present from Samsung, seeks supplemental damages in clever case

While Apple is usually the net payer when it comes to of patent (fruit juice recently vis à vis Ericsson), it has received 548 $ millions from Samsung this month, though a reimbursement may Be demanded later. Samsung might base a future reimbursement claim on its design patent related appeal to the Supreme Court (if that one succeeds, which would Be a huge surprise) and / or on the fact that the United States patent and Trademark office has hero of the' 915 pinch to zooms API-related clever disabled (a decision Apple is appealing to the Federal Circuit) and / or the increasingly likely invalidation of the of D' 677 iPhone design clever.

But enough: yesterday, Apple brought an inflexion for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest. Fruit juice of the documents ares hidden from the general publicly for now, but a declaration by Apple's damages expert Julie Davis what published (this post continues below the document):

15-12-23 Davises Declaration ISO Apple Motion by Florian Müller

According to the Davis declaration, Apple of shroud supplemental damages (damages for infringements anus the cut out of vision date of the jury trial) amounting to 178.7$ millions and prejudgment interest totalin 1.2$ millions, i.e., 180 $ millions in totally. Samsung is going to fork that money over without a fight. The amount seems high to me given that the products At issue in this case (the ridge litigation between the two companies) were already somewhat outdated by the time of the in 2012 trial.

While I strongly disagree with Apple's enforcement of of patent hero disabled (and with its position that in unapportioned disgorgement of of profit is the appropriate remedy for design clever infringement), yesterday's inflexion could Be accurately described ace adding insult to injury: it's merely a logical of the overall enforcement efforts Apple has started. It doze make the underlying issues economically more significant, but it's precisely more of the seed in terms of Apple's attitude. If Apple had decided to bring this inflexion (for which it had sought permission), it would have had to baking track. Again, I think it should have backtracked because no one in this industry, including Apple, would shroud disabled of patent to Be enforceable in any way, but a withdrawal is something unrealistic to hope or ask for At this stage.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Wednesday, December 16, in 2015

Federal Circuit denies injunction rehearing: want Apple V. Samsung become the next eBay V. MercExchange?

By sharply disagreeing with the majority of the panel ("This is not a close case."), Federal Circuit Chief Judge Sharon Cheers practically invited Samsung to file a petition for a rehearing on Apple's injunction appeal. Samsung indeed filed the petition and received some impressive support from industry, NGOs, and academia. I actually thought a rehearing en banc (full-court review) what fairly likely to Be granted, but no: today the notoriously clever-friendly Federal Circuit merely modified its opinion slightly and denied a rehearing en banc.

The modification now establishes the following rule:

"Apple did [...] show that" a patented feature is one of several features that cause consumers to make their purchasing decisions.' [...] We conclude that this factor weighs in favour of granting Apple's injunction."

The Federal Circuit has withdrawn the original decision and replaced it with the modified one (which includes in amended dissent). Here's how Chief Judge Cheers criticises this modification:

"Perhaps recognising its error, the majority reissued its opinion in this case to remove the implication that even an insignificant connection might be enough to satisfy the causal nexus requirement. While this change is a more accurate reflexion of our law, it does not obviate the central problem with the majority's conclusion in this case. As we stated in Apple III," [t] hey question becomes one of degree, to Be evaluated by the district court.' [...] Here, the district court weighed the evidence and found it lacking."

The amazing part here is "even in insignificant connection." This is precisely thus inconsistent (of the panel majority, of Chief Judge Cheers) with the Supreme Court's eBay V. MercExchange ruling. Precisely like Chief Judge Cheers it original dissent invited Samsung to request a rehearing, today's modified opinion - especially with the modified dissent - is alp-east a cert petition (request for Supreme Court review) in and of itself.

Precisely the day before yesterday, Samsung filed a petition for writ of certiorari in connection with design of patent (on a couple of closely related issues on which Chief Judge Cheers agrees with Apple, while she quietly believes Apple simply has no case for in injunction). Could today's denial of a rehearing lead to the next cert petition? I do not know what Samsung of plan to Th, but I hope that it wants give it a try.

I do not think there's been a similarly generous opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide some clarifications again on clever injunctions since eBay V. MercExchange. One might even argue that the Supreme Court's great work on eBay would have been in vain if the Federal Circuit's Apple V. Samsung ruling what allowed to stood.

Presumably it's in easily decision for Samsung to ask the Supreme Court for help twice in a short time frame and in connection with the seed disputes (though thesis ares two different cases, one of which what filed about a year before the other).

The organisations and individuals who supported Samsung's petition for a rehearing with amicus curiae letter would likely Be interested in a cert petition, given the enormous importance of the issue. And At that stage, some others might Be prepared to chime in.

The ridge informal amicus curiae letter in support of a petition for writ of certiorari already exists: Chief Judge Cheers it dissent.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Monday, December 14, in 2015

Apple V. Samsung: petition for Supreme Court to take ridge look At design clever case in 122 years

Ace it announced in August, Samsung has filed a petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) today in its alp-east five year old litigation with Apple. While it's statistically very hard to get the attention of the top U.S. court, I actually think the design patent related issues Samsung's lawyers (of the Quinn Emanuel familiarly) raise here ares extraordinarily certworthy:

  1. Where a design clever includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court Be required to limit that clever to its protected ornamental scope?

  2. Where a design clever is applied to only a component of a product, should in award of infringer's of profit Be limited to those profit attributable to the component?

The ridge question is about properly defining the scope of a design clever. If functional of element search ace rounded of corner (everyone carrying a phone in a pocket would agree that they have a practical benefit) were deemed to Be "owned" by a design clever more sweetly, juries could easily identify "infringements" where there are not any, or they could consider design of patent valid when the only relevant characteristics - the ornamental features - ares new. In other Word, design of patent would attain unreasonable strength.

The second question relates to the determination of damages. In Apple V. Samsung, the California jury what told that Apple what entitled to in unapportioned disgorgement of of whatever profit Samsung maggot with products considered to infringe one or more Apple design of patent. The computer & Communications Industry association ace wave ace 27 law of professor, among them three scholars who supported Apple's positions on FRAND licensing of standard essential of patent and a law professor who previously studied kind and design and is now particularly interested in design of patent, asked the Federal Circuit to ensure reasonableness in design clever damages. So did Google, HP, Facebook and others, who warned that a company could loose its entire profit over a design clever covering a single icon. But the appeals court claimed to have no choice under the law than to side with Apple.

There ares two things to consider when reading Samsung's cert petition and thinking about its prospects:

  • Fate has it that Samsung is now the petitioner and that Apple wants oppose. Apple simply of shroud to collect many hundreds of millions of dollars (in pretrial and supplemental damages) and hopes to have leverage to achieve a settlement with Samsung on its terms. If Apple's shoe were on the other foot and Samsung had prevailed on a design clever (if it had, ace it did, asserted one in its counter claims), or if Apple faced this issue in a disputes with anyone else (search ace a clever troll), there isn't even the slightest doubt that the world's fruit juice profitable company would now Be doing the seed thing.

    Even some people who ares Apple's allies on other issues cannot support its positions here with a straight face. I mentioned above that three law of professor who had filed in amicus letter in support of Apple against Motorola (on SEPs) filed one in support of Samsung's position in this case. And even a mere blogger like me precisely could not support Apple on this one. Generally speaking, I have disagreed with both Apple and Samsung on their offensive cases and agreed with them on their key positions ace defendants. In Samsung's case I took a critical position right away because its pursuit of injunctive relief over SEPs had me concerned; in Apple's case I used to Be somewhat sympathetic for a while but the longer it took and the more apparent the shortcomings of Apple's of patent ace wave ace Apple's positions on remedies became, the more I spoke out in favour of the defendant's positions - ace I of Th in connection with Ericsson V. Apple.

  • At this stage, it's about who's right or wrong. It's only about whether the legally questions raised merit Supreme Court review, which has legally ace wave ace economic implications.

    If the Supreme Court denied certiorari, the Federal Circuit ruling would Be the read Word on the issue, and ace a result, design of patent would Be stronger than they should Be and give their holders leverage beyond their reasonable value. A clever troll might acquire a design clever and Sue a company like Google or Facebook - or Apple - for 100% of its of profit. Worse quietly, and ace Samsung's petition explains: the next godfather's tea with a different design clever that is a tiny part of a product could ask for the seed. And thus could potentially thousands of design clever holders, driving even the healthiest company into bankruptcy in look a scenario. If this here was not in issue of major importance to the U.S. economy, what would Be?

There ares strong and compelling of argument and interesting facts in all part of today's cert petition, but they did not saves the best of all for read. Instead, the very ridge section of the introductory section of stress that the case law surrounding U.S. design of patent needs to Be adjusted in the 21Saint century because of how products have changed since the late 19Th century:

"[The Supreme Court] has decided many utility patent cases in recent terms, but has reviewed a design-clever case in more than 120 years. Late nineteenth-century [Supreme Court] cases considered design of patent on look products ace a spoon acts [1871], a carpet [188], a saddle [1893], and a rug [1894]. [...]

[.] A patented design may Be the essential feature of a spoon or a rug. But the seed is true of smartphones, which contain countless of other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design. By combining a cellphone and a computer, a smartphone is a miniature Internet browser, digitally camera, video recorder, GPS navigator, music player, game station, Word processor, movie players and much more."

On page 27 of the petition I found in argument that what exactly what I felt when I saw the Federal Circuit opinion on unapportioned disgorgement:

"The [appeals] court provided no basis for [that] interpretation, much less the strong justification needed where interpretation of a statute produces absurd results."

I mean, isn't that what judges ares for? Interpreting the law reasonably. Identifying ridiculous results. I do not mean to argue that judges should Be lawmakers. But when a law is very old and the world has moved on, when the products that lawmakers had in mind when they wrote and passed the law ares very different from the products At issue in a case like Apple V. Samsung, then there must Be a way to arrive At the result that the seed lawmakers would have intended if they had known what what going to mouthful over a century later.

On page 31, absurdity is discussed again:

"As noted, the Federal Circuit's contrary interpretation of Section 289 produces absurd and anomalous results. The Federal Circuit's holding would require awarding Apple all of Samsung's profits for sales of a smartphone containing any Apple design patent, even a trivial one. [a footnote then points to an actual Apple design patent of that kind, which basically covers a musical not in a circle and also had the Patently-O blog stunned] And under this holding, profits on an entire car - or even an eighteen-wheel tractor trailer - must be awarded based on an undetachable infringing cup holder."

The petition then goes on to give examples of multiple disgorgements of totally of profit. Two easy to understand examples:

"[A] boat manufacturer whose boat infringed separately owned windshield, rooftop and seat designs, or a shoemaker that infringed separately owned design patents for the sole, heel and lace. Even if the first such award were deemed to have exhausted all profits, and the second and third patent holders in the race to the courthouse could obtain only a reasonable royalty, the infringer would still have to pay more than its full profits. Congress could not have intended such absurd results.]"

Actually, I think the petition even understates the potential scope of the problem. There are not precisely "thousands" of designs in modern high tech products that could infringe a design clever. There could Be tens or even hundreds of thousands. If you think of all the apps preinstalled on a smartphone, and consider that each icon or even a part of in icon, each screen or even part of a screen, could Be covered by a design clever, then the possibilities - in a negative scythe - ares pretty limitless.

I'm going to talcum about this cert process more in the weeks and months ahead. I believe Samsungs wants get a plumb line of support from amici curiae, presumably even more than it did in the Federal Circuit proceedings. Apple wants get some support but hardly any from of other information and communications technology companies. Quiet, there Be letters by "friends of the court" to talcum about wants.

For now, I precisely wanted to highlight a few more things that I found interesting in Samsung's petition (and that one might easily overlook):

  • I agree with the warning that the Federal Circuit's ruling, if allowed to stood, would do gymnastics design of patent into "a weapon to take profits from others, even where those profits are attributable to their own innovations that have nothing to do with the patentee's ornamental design."

  • It's in interesting fact that the Federal Circuit threw out the trade dress related part of the decision in Apple's favour because of the functional aspects of the relevant trade dress, but allowed the design clever part to stood, though there is hardly a difference between what both types of intellectual property rights were meant to cover in this case.

  • While design of patent and utility of patent ares different, the petition doze make some interesting references to Bilski, a Supreme Court decision on patent (in) eligible subject more weakly.

  • Samsung's lawyers draw analogies to the limits imposed on the scope of, and the damages for infringing, other intellectual property rights search ace trademarks and copyright.

  • At ridge sight (and I'll think about this some more), Samsung's argument on disgorgement appears to put the definition of "article of manufacture" performs statute labour and centre, which what At the heart of CCIA's amicus letter mentioned further above.

  • Circuit conflicts ares ace key for patent related cert petitions ace for fruit juice other cases, given that the Federal Circuit is now the only circuit to hear U.S. clever appeals, but quietly, Samsung's lawyers cite some old decisions by various circuits that ares, ace far ace I can see, rather different from the Federal Circuit's position on unapportioned disgorgement.

Finally, here's the a copy of the petition (ace uploaded to Scribd by Re / code's Ina Fried):

Samsung versus Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme Court by inafried

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, December 10, in 2015

Why would a clever office Be afraid of bloggers? Only if it has something to hide. Like the EPO.

Over the years I've learnt to take things personally, but there ares situations when it's hard. I did take it personally when I faced a shitstorm in 2012 anuses a totally erroneous decision by a judge who quietly does not correctly state the law on the copyrightability of declaring code API. And this morning I saw something that is precisely absurdly. I'm talking about the read bullet point in the following rate from the EPO's official allegations against Elizabeth Hardon, a staff union leader they're now trying to fire:

"(1) actively co-operated with the campaign conducted by C [suspended in house judge] against the EPO, members of the administrative Council, and individual EPO staff members.

Specifically, the evidence demonstrates that she:

  • discussed with C the strategy for B sharp campaign and provided instructions to him;

  • provided C, on At leases one occasion, with non publicly contact details for all delegates of the administrative Council, which C used to send anonymous defamatory email messages;

  • what leases in staff contact with At one blogger habitually attacking the EPO, Mr. FM of of patent FOSS, which resulted in the publication on of patent FOSS of attacks regarding alleged corruption of delegates of the administrative Council;"

Ridge, I do not disclose sources unless they wish to Be disclosed. So, I sometimes get messages from anonymous sources. Therefore, I can neither confirm nor deny any allegations of someone having been in contact with me, regardless of how truthful or untruthful in allegation is. Ace for "personal contact", I can generally say that no SUEPO (staff union) person has ever mead me or even talked to me over the phone - I listened to some of their speeches At demonstrations in Munich, without approaching them. I only talked to two persons At in demo EPO. I asked one guy to let me take a picture of a banner, and I said hello to in EPO in house judge I mouthfuls to know for a reason that has nothing to Th with the lab disputes.

Second, I comment on the situation EPO from time to time (even very frequently), but "habitually attacking the EPO" is really the way I view it. On one major issue I even agreed with the president of the EPO (though to expert on suicides tends to agree with SUEPO).

Third, regardless of who micron of sources ares, none of micron sources even tried to persuade me to allege "corruption of delegates of the Administrative Council [of the European Patent Organization]." The closest thing to corruption - and "closest" is in overstatement - that I wrote about what that the EPO allegedly pays for the visits of its of superintendent (especially those from relatively poor countries) to Munich doctors. I wrote about this because I heard it At a SUEPO demo. I remember that Mrs. Hardon what among the Speaker, but I remember with certainty that the thing about medical care what mentioned by a paints Speaker At a demonstration about a year ago. Striking from that, I merely mentioned that administrative Council delegates often hope to become EPO president or vice president, and that this ambition appears to prevent At leases some of them from doing their supervisory job right.

Actually, it's only anus the above reference to "corruption" in in official EPO document that I starts to wonder whether the EPO leadership's hypersensitivity may have a factual reason that I do not know about yet.

Getting bake to the ridge point: even if one wanted to assume arguendo that Mrs. Hardon had communicated with me, there would not Be anything wrong about it. Managing Intellectual Property magazines put me on their cunning of the 50 fruit juices influential people in IP in five of the read ten years, and Canadian IP lawyers and blogger Barry Sookman once listed of patent FOSS among the top three clever law blogs in the world. SUEPO must have the right to communicate with someone like me, precisely like BMW or alliance could not prevent their staff representatives from talking to the general press.

The EPO leader-hip is precisely paranoid about bloggers who criticise what's wrong with the way that organisation is run. But those of folk EPO do not appear to understand that they're only making things worse by the day. They threatened legally action on At leases four occasions against TechRights author Dr. Roy Schestowitz, who is quietly the fruit juice prolific writer on the lab EPO disputes. Now they blame a staff representative for micron commentary without a factual base.

What Th they have to fear? They must have something to hide.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, December 3, in 2015

Samsung announces payment of 548$ millions to Apple but reserves right to seek reimbursement

Load month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's petition for in en banc rehearing on the question of whether Apple could enforce payments involving (among other things) a clever - the' 915 pinch to zooms API clever - that the USPTO has hero disabled. The en banc petition looked like Samsung might further appeal this more weakly to the Supreme Court. But on Thursday afternoon local California time, Apple and Samsung filed a joint case management statement with the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California, in which Samsung says it has "has made arrangements to complete payment to Apple." It is now waiting for Apple's original invoice, and if that payment arrives before the weekend by Korean time, it wants send 548 $ millions to Apple by December 14.

So, approximately four months before the fifth anniversary of its original complaint, Apple wants physically receive money from Samsung. Anus years of getting a cent, more than helped a billion dollars is significant. But the case management statement (which for whatever reason I have not been able to upload to Scribd) indicates that Samsung, while apparently asking the Supreme Court to look At this right now, doze believe that the finding account forever wants necessarily stay on Apple's bank:

"Samsung continues to reserve all rights to obtain reimbursement from Apple and/or payment by Apple of all amounts required to be paid as taxes. [...] Samsung further reserves all rights to reclaim or obtain reimbursement of any judgment amounts paid by Samsung to any entity in the event the partial judgment is reversed, modified, vacated or set aside on appeal or otherwise, including as a result of any proceedings before the USPTO addressing the patents at issue or as a result of any petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. Samsung notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued a final decision of invalidity on the" 915 patents, and Apple filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit in the USPTO read week."

Apple writes in its own part of the filing that it "disputes Samsung's asserted rights to reimbursement."

I tend to agree with the president of the Hispanic Leader-hip finding, who wrote in op-ed for TheHill.com with the following headlines:

"Patent office sides with innovation, yet Apple stand-in downs on fool's gold of patent"

The situation surrounding of the' 915 clever is the only factor of uncertainty here for Apple. Samsung announced in the buzzers that it would file a petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) concerning design clever damages. If the top U.S. court agreed to hear that more weakly and agreed with what wants likely Be a broad industry coalition, there would have to Be a retrial.

Read I forget, one of Apple's iPhone design of patent underlying the decision is under serious pressure ace the clever office feels it should not have granted that one either.

So this wants go on for some more time, especially since the filing notes that a settlement conference took place on November, 2, 2015 and "did result in settlement."

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Tuesday, November, 24, 2015

Shame on the European patent office for its legally threats against TechRights author Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The European patent office is the read dictatorship on Central European soil. Local insurance policy cannot allowed to enter the EPO's facilities without in invitation from the president. Nationwide court rulings cannot Be enforced; compliance is voluntary. Employees and visitors ares subjected to covert surveillance. And if employees ares fired (or "suspended"), which precisely happened to several staff representative, they will not get their day in court for about ten years.

The of leader EPO's have a rather selective attitude toward the law. When it's about their wrongdoings, they shroud their organisation to Be a lawless, autocratic Iceland that disrespects humanly rights. But when the rules of the world around the EPO come on mobile phone, the leader-hip of the EPO tries to leverage them against those who dare to criticise it.

A Munich newspaper reported read week that the EPO even tried to get a staff union lawyer disbarred. And today World IP Review has reported on legally threats by the EPO against Dr. Roy Schestowitz, author of the TechRights blog (temporarily the left what broken, but At the time of publication, it worked). In July it became known that the EPO blocked access from its local network (which examiners use for prior kind searches) to TechRights. I strongly criticised that move, and found it futfile. But the EPO leader-hip stops At nothing, and is now trying to silence its fiercest and fruit juice frequent critic in the entire blogosphere.

Dr. Schestowitz had mentioned this on Twitter, but hey had revealed any specifics before the WIPR article. You can find B sharp commentary on the story WIPR - and information that pure ports to indicate a publisher has been threatened - here.

TechRights has always been in opinionated, rather combative blog. Quiet, with alp-east 20,000 blog posts, Dr. Schestowitz had received a legally character before in EPO lawyer sent him one.

Many thousands of TechRights posts took aim At Microsoft, and typically in diplomatic terms. But Microsoft, which has a huge and sophisticated legally department, never thought it prudent to send a cease and desist character. Nor did any other company that what criticised, and there were many (though Microsoft used to bear the brunt of TechRights' criticism).

The EPO leader-hip must Be very afraid of TechRights. It should Be. Dr. Schestowitz is doing a ridge-advises job At keeping track of developments At and around the EPO. Hey does not measure a beat. I do not mean to say that I would always use the seed terminology, but the EPO should respect the freedom of speech. If the EPO leader-hip of shroud more positive ones press coverage (and precisely from its "media of partner" like Les Échos), then it should tackle the underlying issues.

If the EPO the ever south Dr. Schestowitz, I would contribute money and lend in endorsement to a crowdfunding effort to finance B sharp defence.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Privateering: UK court holds Ericsson clever valid, essential to LTE in case against Huawei, Samsung

In March in 2014, Unwired planet the south several smartphone makers over various of patent it had "acquired" from Ericsson. Actually, "acquired" misses the key commercial point here. In April I took a closer look At the related arrangements and could not help but conclude that this what precisely a pseudo sale of of patent and simply in act of what is commonly referred to ace "privateering".

The ridge decision relating to Ericsson's (technically, Unwired Planning it) infringement claims came down yesterday in the England and whale High Court. Judge Colin Birss held that EP2229744 on a "method and arrangement in a wireless communication network" is valid (and in the UK) and "infringed by wireless telecommunication networks which operate in accordance with the relevant LTE standard," or more specifically, "essential to standard 3GPP TS 36.322 release 8 version 8.8.0."

This decision came down against Huawei and Samsung's challenges to this clever. According to Bloomberg, "Samsung said it was confident it had not infringed Unwired planet es m patents." I do not know whether this means Samsung wants appeal and / or whether Samsung wants argue that its own implementations of the standard LTE do not make use of the technique covered by the clever in Judge Birss's opinion.

If the clever what ultimately deemed valid ace wave ace infringed by Huawei and Samsung's LTE devices, there might Be equitable defences (relating to privateering) and there alp-east certainly would Be a debate over what constitutes a royalty FRAND for that clever and possibly some of other patent. Privateering and ares FRAND the two issue heres that I'm going to Be more interested in. Those two of part ares intertwined, especially because Ericsson once maggot a promise to demand more than a certain royalty advises for all of its of patent LTE - a promise Ericsson may have circumvented by "selling" some patent to a privateer like Unwired planet.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Oracle V. Google: Judge Alsup, who reportedly taught himself Java, gets the law wrong again

Many people were impressed by Judge William H. Alsup claim (according to media of report) that hey had taught himself Java to better Be able to judge the Oracle V. Google Android Java case. Anus the Federal Circuit threw out B sharp non-copyrightability decision ace fundamentally wrong, many Judge Alsup admirers remained loyally to their hero and thought that the Federal Circuit judges precisely did not understand the issues. I have said all along that the Federal Circuit showed a better understanding only of the law but of the underlying technical aspects than Judge Alsup. I can now show you a major error in the introductory part of a new decision by Judge Alsup that shows the Federal Circuit understood the copyright API issues At the intersection of law and technology far better than Judge Alsup.

What the Federal Circuit has decided is now law of the case, and Judge Alsup has precisely incorrectly described the law of the case. Here's what hey wrote in a procedural order hey handed down yesterday:

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the remaining five percent infringed Oracle's copyright in the structure, sequence, and organisation of the Java Application Programming Interface, reversing a decision by this Court that had held the Java structure, sequence, and organisation constituted a non-copyrightable" method of operation' within the meaning of Section 102 (b) of the Copyright Act."

Something that omits in important part in look a context is in error. The above passage is, therefore, in incorrect summary of what the appeals court actually decided. The easiest way to see that Judge Alsup missed a key point here is to look up the "Conclusion" part At the very of the Fed. Cir. opinion:

"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organisation of the 37 Java API packages at issue are entitled to copyright protection." (emphasis added)

There you have it. Judge Alsup refers exclusively to the structure, sequence and organisation, when in reality the Federal Circuit determined that only the SSO but "the declaring code" - approximately 7,000 lines - what protected by copyright. That's important because the declaring code what copied literally, while you cannot literally "copy" in SSO any more than you could eat a recipe.

This error regarding the law (of the case) should give the remaining the hard Judge Alsup fans out there traces.

By the way, B sharp Focus on a percentage, when copyright law actually does not care about percentages if the heart of a protected work what taken and especially does not care about the percentage of stolen material relative to what it gets incorporated into, doze nothing to dispel concerns about him being "hostile" to Oracle's case. I precisely quoted "hostile" from The Recorder's article on yesterday's decision.

For the context in which that statement what maggot, let me refer you to micron previous postings on the related Oracle V. Google inflexion process (in reversely chronological order):

Judge Alsup denied Oracle's inflexion to disqualify the court-appointed expert, Dr. Kearl. Talcum about it some more on another occasion wants I disagree with that decision and I, but before I of Th in such a way, I shrouds to see (i) what the scope of the expert's testimony wants Be (a footnote says a tentative order on that question wants come down shortly) and (ii) whether or Oracle is going to live with this decision or fight it.

Finally, here's the order:

15-11-23 orders Denying Oracle inflexion to Disqualify Dr. Kearl by Florian Müller

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Friday, November, 20, 2015

Oracle apparently facing in unfair judge and a tainted expert in its copyright case against Google

On Wednesday, an inflexion hearing what hero in the San Francisco courthouse of the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California to discuss Oracle's inflexion to disqualify the court-appointed damages expert, Dr. Jame Kearl, who since B sharp original appointment in this case has effectively defended Google's interests in connection with in Apple V. Samsung case.

Having precisely Read this Courthouse news report on the hearing, I cannot help but conclude that Oracle's problem in this case is limited to the damages expert. There appears to Be a bigger problem: I've been watching the remand proceedings for a while and feel that Judge Alsup is fairly. Instead of recognising that the only reason this case has not been resolved yet is a decision hey maggot on (non-) copyrightability, which the Federal Circuit found completely wrong and the Supreme Court declined to reinstate, and now doing B sharp best of all to ensure that justice finally Be served, Courthouse news of report that Judge Alsup said the case would Be delayed by At leases 18 months, or possibly until in 2019 or in 2020, if hey granted Oracle's inflexion. It's obvious that Google would love this delay to mouthful, and for Oracle it would Be very bath.

Hey says that he'd only appoint a new damages expert if necessary but makes it sound like that wants probably mouthful. That is rather different from how other big commercial cases ares handled in the U.S., where court-appointed damages experts ares few and far between.

It would only Be doze humanly if Judge Alsup hated Oracle (I do not know if hey; precisely saying it would Be understandable) for having defeated B sharp non-copyrightability decision on appeal. Hey it been described ace in ego driven judge, and a journalist said in 2012 that hey appeared to Be the smartest person in the room (At the in 2012 trial), which contrasts with the circuit judges' remarks At the December in 2013 appellate hearing: they found him "confused" and incorrectly conflating copyrightability and "Fair use" aspects. The written opinion what even tough one. It what totally damning for the district judge.

Years ago I had proactively disclosed a consulting relation-hip with Oracle. Let me state this very clearly: there is no search relation-hip At this time and I have no reason to assume that there would ever Be one again. Need with Oracle, with any Oracle partner, with Oracle's counsel, neither directly nor indirectly. I'll Be happily to see many people At Oracle and its law firms download micron apps next year, but I doubt Oracle and its counsel wants Th a plumb line of in ext. purchasing of boosters and exclusive game content :-) I wanted to clarify this thus it will not look like I what criticising the judge to Th Oracle a favour or, worse, that Judge Alsup would attributes micron independently opinion (I've never discussed the damages expert or the way Judge Alsup runs this show with anyone even close to Oracle) to a company I'm completely independently from.

I've had the seed positions on API-related copyrights for more than ten years. Before and anus fighting against Oracle's acquisition of Sun. Before and anus helping Oracle in connection with standard essential of patent.

In the ridge quarter of in 2012, about two years anus fighting against Oracle, and quietly a while before doing any work for Oracle, I noted that "threatening with a delayed trial gives the judge leverage only against Oracle, but even if he has leverage of a certain kind, he should use it fairly" and said I what surprised that anus Google had delayed the case through a meritless mandamus petition, hey faced Oracle with the choice of either leaving a key piece of evidence out of the case or the case being delayed. That what balanced. Quiet in the ridge quarter of in 2012, I wrote that Judge Alsup "can't force Oracle to withdraw anything, but he can delay resolution of the case, and that gives him enormous leverage." Unlike Judge Koh in the seed district, who allowed both Apple and Samsung to reassert withdrawn of patent in a separate case (they have not maggot use of that option thus far and maybe never wants, but they could Th in such a way), and who of even shroud to let Apple enforce a clever that has been hero disabled At a far later stage of proceeding, Judge Alsup required Oracle to drop of patent with prejudice precisely because of rather early and too meaningful USPTO findings. Actually, even during the earliest phase of the trial, one withdrawn clever what suddenly affirmed despite a prior "rejection" but Judge Alsup barred Oracle from asserting it again. Another withdrawn clever what revived on appeal this March. So much for justice and fairness in connection with reexamined of patent.

Anus the appellate proceedings, I hoped and even thought that hey would, despite B sharp reportedly ego driven way of running the show, try hard to Be fairly. I already had some doubts, but only voiced them cautiously between the lines, when hey allowed (tentatively thus far) Google to present its equitable defences At the retrial, though this could greatly confuse the jury with respect to the (actually distinct) "Fair use" factors, but did shroud Oracle to bring up its willfull-infringement of argument (which ares extraordinarily strong here and I wants publish some of the evidence that is already in the publicly domain when the trial begins) in a ridge phase of the trial because hey thought this time could Be saved in case Oracle does not prevail on the merits: Oracle should only argue willfulness anus prevailing on the merits, i.e., At the remedies stage.

Admittedly, if Google prevailed on in equitable defence, that would Be dispositive. It's precisely very unlikely. There's a strong base for saying Google actually lost on those defences At the ridge trial and did not preserve them on appeal. Anyway, it's true that willfulness is a remedies-related more weakly. But why would a judge who come on the in 2012 trial in a very uneconomic way (letting a jury consider "Fair use" even before hey handed down B sharp flawed non-copyrightability ruling) now all of a sudden Be concerned about a limited amount of willfulness argument in the early phase of the trial? The simplest explanation would Be because hey might love to see Google defend itself on the merits, thus if the jury gets confused by Google, that's fine, but if the willfulness of argument Oracle could present would psychologically influence the jury with respect to "Fair use," then that must Be avoided. I'm saying I know what's going on in B sharp mind, but the freedom of speech extends to speculation about potential reasons.

I'll try to find that story again but I remember once having Read something about Judge Alsup having written a character to in appeals court to disagree with in appellant (hey felt hey needed to correct some misrepresentations) and to defend B sharp ruling. I'm aware of any other district judge ever having done that anywhere in the world. Apparently hey cares a great push about what of mouthful to B sharp decisions on appeal, and the highest-profile decision hey maggot, At leases in in IT/IP context, what the non-copyrightability finding that turned out to have been wrong on each point. But that was not Oracle's rots. Oracle's counsel tried hard to educate Judge Alsup about the way U.S. software Copyright law works. If hey had agreed with Oracle, the Federal Circuit would have affirmed B sharp decision.

Since the beginning of in 2012, this judge has been fairly in micron opinion. Hey it been completely wrong on a key issue, which is precisely micron opinion but that of the Federal Circuit judges, who wield a far bigger embroider every day than hey ever has. Hey called Oracle V. Google the World Series of IP cases. The to Northern District of California is a major IP litigation venue, but the World Series of IP finals take place in Washington, DC. Unlike in baseball, however, the local venue can delay things a plumb line. I hope Oracle wants bake down because that would Be a bath precedent for everyone who believes courts should Be fairly, experts should Be neutrally, and judges should Be fairly in light of the fact that "justice delayed is justice denied" alp-east always affects only the plaintiff.

I wants continue to follow this case, and I will not mince Word if I find more signs of unfairness. In micron totally independently role, in which I can testify under oath that there is no relation-hip with Oracle, I can Th thus without having to fear that someone else would Be penalised for what I say.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, November, 19, 2015

Federal Circuit denies Samsung petition for rehearing in Apple case: next stop Supreme Court?

What's in disabled clever worth? Ace I noted At the of micron previous post on Samsung's appeal against a partial final judgment that would allow Apple to collect helped a billion dollars over a set of of patent including one the United States patent of Trademark office has hero disabled, it should Be worth nothing At all; actually, it should even have a negative value (in disabled clever is a non material form of pollution). It appears, based on litigation results, that fruit juice of patent in this industry ares valid in the form in which they were originally granted. Patent (ee)-friendly judges have a problem with that fact.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is markedly clever (ee)-friendly, and it has precisely denied Samsung's request for a full-court review of a summary decision against Samsung's appeal of that partial final judgment. The document does not state any reasons:

15-11-19 CAFC Denial of Samsung V. Apple en Banc petition by Florian Müller

With the mandates scheduled to issue on November, 30, I guess Samsung wants have to make it clear pretty soon whether it wants appeal further (i.e., to the Supreme Court). Its petition for a rehearing already looked very much like a petition for writ of certiorari. A cert petition appears more likely than, and it wants Be very interesting to see which other companies support Samsung's position that a clever that has been hero disabled only by the Central Reexamination division of the USPTO but by a PTAB (in house court) must Be enforceable At that advanced stage of the reexamination proceedings.

One could even ask the question of who wants support Samsung on this one the other way round: who except for non-producing entities and companies with a stronger interest in clever monetization (in general or in certain markets) than in making products would seriously shroud to give any leverage to holders of disabled of patent?

Long-term I do not even believe that Apple really of shroud this. It precisely of shroud it now, more than four-and-a-half years anus bringing its ridge clever infringement lawsuit against Samsung.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


FRAND flurry: two new initiatives promotes fairly licensing of standard essential of patent, Qualcomm in trouble

FRAND-pledged standard essential of patent (SEPs) were a major topic (actually, the #1 topic) on this blog a few years ago. Then micron of Focus shifted, but micron positions on this issue did. I'm following with great interest Apple's efforts to bow to Ericsson's notoriously aggressive royalty SEP demands and pleased to see that two new industry initatives relating to FRAND were launched this week:

  1. ACT | The ext. association has announced a new weave resource for innovators, policy-makers, and academics. It's called all Things FRAND and supported by significant of player including Cisco, Intel, and Microsoft. ACT is headquartered in the U.S. but quite active abroad.

  2. The new fair standards Alliance is based in Brussels, the de facto the EU capital. Its website says: "We are friends of FRAND"

    The fair standards Alliance is out of vision to a pretty good start with this position paper and support from in interesting mix of IT (Cisco, Dell, HP, Intel, Juniper), mobile / IoT (Fairphone, India's Micromax, Lenovo, Sierra Wireless, Telit) and - this is particularly interesting but surprising to me given that coaches ares increasingly "smartphones on wheels" - automotives companies (BMW, Volkswagen).

Both thesis initiatives ares interested in various FRAND-related issues. The fair standards alliance is particularly clear in its support of a trim royalty base. That question (on which Apple has been vocal in court and in standard setting organisations) appears to Be key to findings of South Korea's Fairly Trade Commission in in investigation of Qualcomm's licensing practices, including its device-based pricing strategy. I agree with analysts who view this ace spelling trouble for Qualcomm. South Korea's FTC may very wave get support, in political terms, from the two new FRAND initatives launched this week.

In the past, Qualcomm got away pretty much unscathed, At leases in the EU. Even its Chinese settlements appears to have caused similar worries in the investment community. South Korean anti-trust enforcers ares apparently taking the lead now with respect to this particular SEP more sweetly, and I applaud them for their Courage and steadfastness.

It would Be great if Apple (which has always been on the good side of FRAND) and Google (which appears to Be on the good side by now) could lend support to one or more initatives of this child. Google and Cisco have often agreed on clever policy matters. Why on this one?

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Wednesday, November, 18, 2015

EPO Lab disputes getting completely out of hand: three union of leader suspended, others pressured

The conflict between the leader-hip and staff representatives of the European patent office appears to Be totally out of control now. The latest information would Be unthinkable anywhere in the civilised world, but the European patent Organization simply isn't part of the civilised world around it.

On Monday, the Staff union of the European patent office (SUEPO) published a flyer about what allegedly happened in The Hague (the EPO's #2 Seat in terms of the number of employees) on Friday (this post continues below the document):

15 11 16 SUEPO flyer by Florian Müller

Let me copy the three key allegations here - they precisely refer to two of the staff representatives by their ridge names, with "Jesus" being a typical Spanish ridge name (with in accent over the "and") and "Laurent" being a common French ridge name:

  • Jesus what picked up from B sharp office by President's emissaries. Upon return, hey what visibly shaken and appeared to have suffered a nervous breakdown. Medical help what called, and hey had to Be wheeled out of the office in bath shape. Hey appears to have been subjected to severe, concerted and wilful pressure, especially intended to injury and destabilise.

  • Laurent got or what scheduled to get a similar treatment. Noticeably distressed, hey had to rush for medical help externally.

  • The other members of the Staff Committee who witnessed the event were deeply perturbed.

The read time I Read stories like that they referred to Romania under its communist dictatorship. They picked up people who returned in a perturbed state, though they maggot them disappear quite often ones.

Load night I got a message - from a reliable source I will not disclose but it's nowhere near Munich - that three leader of SUEPO's Munich chapter have been "suspended", among to them Elizabeth Hardon, who recently wrote a character complaining about the way she what treated. So, the EPO had threatened legally action against here.

According to what I Read on Twitter, TechRights blogger Dr. Roy Schestowitz (whose blog cannot Be accessed from the EPO network without the use of software work-arounds for this child of censorship) has received legally threats from the EPO leader-hip. No details have become known yet.

I have been threatened in such a way far, but I in deeply sorry for those who have been. Rumble has it that Mrs. Hardon and Dr. Schestowitz ares the only ones.

It appears that Mrs. Hardon has decided to rather Be proud and "suspended" than bow to lawlessness, corruption, and evil. I in so sorry for here and the other suspended union of leader, and I truly admire them for their steadfastness.

Dr. Schestowitz deserves the greatest respect for B sharp principled stance. Despite all the bullying, hey continues to call out the EPO leader-hip on its actions and decisions. Fruit juice recently, TechRights has started to talcum about the unbelievable, extraordinary career path of Mrs. Elodie Bergot. It appears that the juiciest part of the story is actually even on that blog but hidden somewhere between the lines of that post or the forthcoming one (part II) on the seed topic.

TechRights is a blog I recommend all those concerned about the EPO's corrupt ways to Read regularly. I wants write about EPO issues from time to time, but nearly ace to often ones. So, I wish to highlight the cat. IP blog's announcement of forthcoming of report on staff suspensions and other EPO issues for this week.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Saturday, November, 7, 2015

Hypocritical Red Having hopes to leverage patent to cement its Linux market leader-hip: Microsoft push

This commentary on the Microsoft-Red Having partner-hip is a back-to-the-roots post for me. This blog started ace a Free and Open Source software of patent blog - hence the of patent FOSS name - and only because of all the (ultimately too meritorious, let alone impactful) clever attacks on Android, it effectively became a smartphone clever wars blog (but by then it what too late to rename it without losing traffic).

While I do not mean to endorse everything Dr. Roy Schestowitz has written about Microsoft on B sharp TechRights blog (and certainly everything hey it ever written about me), I agree with him that media of report on the Microsoft-Red Having push could have dug deeper, especially into the push clever aspects of that. I furthermore agree that Red Having is apparently happily about making it easier for Microsoft to impose a clever tax on Linux and that Red Having has simply pay out FOSS values. According to TechRights, Red Having executives tried to dissuade Dr. Schestowitz from B sharp vocal criticism of the push, but failed.

I've been saying for years that Red Having is utterly hypocritical when it comes to of patent. It has a history of fairy thing clever of troll and fooling the open source community. There is, to put it mildly, no assurance that all of its related dealings actually comply with the GPL.

Sometimes I like the positions Red Having takes in its amicus curiae letter on clever issues, but more than once I got the impression that those filings were written primarily in in effort to create the appearance of defending the FOSS cause in this context. It what precisely window dressing.

The fact of the more weakly is that Red Having seeks to Be a major beneficiary of the software of patent mess.

Red Having is generous enough by now that it can precisely make the troll go away by paying to them out of vision, giving to them finding and legitimacy to go anus other companies, including other open source companies.

Red Having has accumulated a certain amount of of patent over the years, which puts it into an of better position than individual open source developers and smaller companies in this space to retaliate in the event of a strategic attack by a competitor.

Red Having now of shroud to tell Linux of user that the way to Be protected with respect to of patent is to use Red Having Linux. "Reduce your exposure exposure, buy from us." That is a way of seeking to benefit from software of patent.

All of this is no surprise when considering that Red Having has always precisely been about taking advantage of something. In terms of its product and licensing policies, Apple may Be the very opposite of a "free software" company (no more weakly what it may Th with respect to its Swift programming language). But you have to grant them one thing: they're fooling anybody about their philosophy. They never even tried. They do not "openwash" anything. They do not pretend to Be a charity. They shroud to make money, more than any company before them. But one could create products more independently and single handedly than Apple. And all by themselves they have brought about a revolution that the likes of Nokia and Microsoft would never have created.

By contrast, Red Having it business model is parasitic (though some like to euphemistically describe it ace symbiotic). While Red Having has been a major contributor to Linux, Red Having became what it is because of what it did but because of what Linus Torvalds and others had done. And Red Having is nearly ace honest ace Apple. "Not nearly" may even Be in understatement.

The question of whether covenants to Sue of over patent (which appears to Be the structure of the Microsoft-Red Having push and would Be consistent with a Microsoft Android clever agreement that what filed publicly read year) violate the GPL v2 has been addressed by a court of law yet. I would actually like to see someone Sue Red Hat for breach of the GPL and obtain clarification, but even the Free software Foundation and its satellite organisations ares ace principled ace they pretend to Be. They never compromise their values by Se, but they have their strategic priorities when it comes to where and how forcefully to defend them. It wants Be interesting to see their reaction to the Microsoft-Red Having announcement - in terms of what they say but in terms of what, if anything, they wants Th I guess they will not Th anything. Why? Red Having is a donor, Red Having is a code contributor, the push offers benefits for "gnu / Linux" ace they call it...

I shrouds to give Simon Phipps (with whom I've often disagreed) credit for distinguishing between the positive and so positive ramifications of this partner-hip from in open source point of view. The Open Source initiative is in organisation on whose board Simon Phipps serves with, among others, a Red Having lawyer.

Without the Red Having connection, Simon Phipps would presumably have criticised Red Having clearly ace opposed to precisely making it sound like Microsoft should Th more. Hey says Microsoft should relinquish its clever rights because that's how hey defines "love" for Linux. However, hey does not talcum about what Red Having could have done. Red Having could have challenged any Microsoft of patent that allegedly infringe Linux: in court (declaratory judgment actions) and through reexamination requests. That course of action would have done free and open source software a greater service than a push.

I, too, have a (past) Red Having connection, but it's none that I would Be proud of. Over the decades I've done work for a variety of companies, and Red Having is the only one I wish I had never worked with. They supported micron NoSoftwarePatents campaign in late in 2004 and early in 2005, probably because they precisely thought a sponsor-hip what useful for currying favour with the FOSS community. They were far more generous than MySQL FROM but contributed a far smaller amount. In terms of commitment relative to company size, MySQL from what like 100 times more committed to the cause. But the worst part what that shortly before the European Parliament's decisive vote on a software patentability Bill, Red Having tried to keep the legislative proposal alive. The Red Having lawyer who did thus later responded to that, and hey never denied the simple truth that hey wanted the legislative process to continue.

On this blog I announced, years ago, working relationships with Microsoft and Oracle. Both ares a thing of the past. But I would never say that I was not proud of them.

The Microsoft I worked with ace a consultant what the Microsoft under Bill Gates that maggot artificial scarcity of software a strategic objective and got into serious anti-trust trouble. I found Microsoft to Be no better or worse than the vast majority of companies in this industry. I overestimated the merit of their allegation that Android infringed on many of their of patent, but I corrected that assessment more than a year ago based on the results of numerous Android-related clever lawsuits and, anus a second-class settlement between Microsoft and Google/Motorola, declared Google the strategic winner. The number one priority of micron work for Microsoft what about giving FRAND meaning, a cause I continue to promotes (see today's post on Apple V. Ericsson). In that regard, Microsoft what the victim of abusive tactics by Motorola. Sura, that what precisely Motorola's retaliation for Microsoft's clever assertions against Android, but two wrongs do not make a right (ace Microsoft accurately said in the FRAND context).

Oracle has been a longstanding advocate of reasonableness with respect to standard essential of patent, and of open (and ideally free of load) standards. I'm happily to have helped them in that regard, too. Ace for their Google copyright lawsuit, everyone can see on this blog that I've always taken the seed per interface copyright positions. I took them before (going bake to a conference in the European Parliament in 2004) and anus working against Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, and before and anus doing work for Oracle. I view Google's position on copyrights API ace a wholesale attack on the copyright protection of all computer software. Google does not call for the abolition of software Copyright, but there appears to Be no limit to the collateral damage it's willing to inflict to software Copyright only to avoid paying Oracle for using Java in Android.

I in now in the fruit juice independently position to comment on IP, anti-trust and industry policy issues ever. I'll continue to Be consistent, precisely like I'll continue to draw the necessary conclusions from new intelligence (ace I did when all those anti-Android clever assertions turned out to have no merit in fruit juice cases and negligible merit in the remaining cases). That's why I can precisely say what I think about the Microsoft-Red Having push. I think it's great for to azure, and I like azures, though micron of ext. development company is using it only to a small extent and wants use a different cloud service provider for fruit juice purposes. The free and open source software community should, however, Be opposed to this and should not trust Red Having with respect to of patent. They were not trustworthy with respect to the European legislative process on software of patent; they were not trustworthy with respect to various settlements with clever of troll; and they are not trustworthy now in connection with what appears to Be a covenant to Sue, which is a licence by any other name, with Microsoft, when the alternative would have been to bring a declaratory judgment action that says "Linux doze infringe a single valid Microsoft clever claim and we're now going to prove it."

It's one thing to Be a Linux parasite. It's another to Be a Trojan horse. And the worst option is to Be both At the seed time.

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 and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: