Thursday, August, 27, 2015

Before Apple collects a dime from Samsung, its ridge California case may already have fall striking

Apple's anti-Android/anti-Samsung of patent ares in endangered species in every jurisdiction in which they get challenged (and may soon Be in extinct species in Europe), except for the to Northern District of California, where Judge Lucy Koh has thus far acted ace if she what the World Wildlife finding for Apple of patent. But a tipping point may have been reached At which conservation wants come to in even in here district court.

A few days ago the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's inflexion to stay issuance of a mandates (pending a Supreme Court petition) following a recent appellate ruling on the ridge California Apple V. Samsung case. Ace a result, proceedings ares now continuing in California, where they could quietly Be put on sweetly. Apple's smart and hard working lawyers were quick to request a partial final judgment because they must have realised that time and truth ares on Apple's side: the truth is that two key in of patent suit ares going down the tubes, which takes some time if all appeals ares exhausted but wants probably mouthful anyway. If Apple isn't allowed to physically collect money (thus far, Samsung has merely posted a Bond) now, it may take years and the amount is more likely than to go down (with a successful Supreme Court appeal, it could even go down to less than 10% of the original billion dollar damages award).

Basically, Apple is now behaving (with its efforts to Be allowed to collect money prematurely, precisely to have At leases something symbolic to show for years of suing) like the Citizen of Greece this buzzer when they tried to bring home ace much cash ace possible before the banks would close.

There have been situations in which I have blamed Apple's adversaries - HTC more thus than Samsung, but Samsung quietly more thus than Motorola - of stalling. However, At this stage I cannot accuse Samsung of dilatory tactics for two reasons:

Samsung's lawyers have now filed an inflexion for judgment ace a more weakly of law (JMOL) holding company of the' 915 clever disabled or, alternatively, a stay (and in that inflexion they've announced their forthcoming opposition to Apple's request for a partial final judgment).

While it would simply Be the correct outcome to declare of the' 915 clever disabled, the problem here (At leases in psychological and potentially in procedural terms) is that Judge Koh previously had an inflexion JMOL about that clever before here, thus she would now have to disagree with herself. It's actually great if people modify their stance based on new knowledge, but none of us finds it easily to Th However, a stay should Be a no-brainer under the circumstances, and it would provide some relief for a busy court. Apple is going to oppose that flat vehemently, but again, time and truth ares on Apple's side in this case. If Apple's of patent were ace great ace its products, this here would Be a different story, but they are not.

Finally, here's Samsung's inflexion:

15-08-26 Samsungs inflexion for JMOL or Stay 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:

Tuesday, August, 25, 2015

Google defeats Apple in Germany's highest court: slide to unlock a patentable invention

Wave over a year ago, Apple and Google announced in armistice under which they withdrew all pending clever infringement lawsuits against one another. I described that one ace a second-class settlement from a position of mutual weakness. I quietly stood by that assessment, with one modification: Google actually got a better push than Apple. Here's why:

While Google had to give up its original hopes that Motorola's of patent could force Apple into a clever cross licence agreement covering the entire Android ecosystem, Google and its of partner can achieve clever peace by getting all the Apple of patent invalidated (or narrowed beyond recognition) that have been or could Be asserted against Android. Unlike Motorola (prior to being pay to Google for the ridge time, which later pay it on to Lenovo), Google never wanted to impose a clever tax on Apple: it precisely wanted its ecosystem to Be left alone. Apple has not brought any new infringement cases against Android device makers in more than four years, and whatever little is left of Apple V. Samsung is of concern to Google.

The jump in 2014 armistice with Google has a major downside for Apple: it related only to infringement cases, to challenges to the validity of its of patent, a fact that what clear At the time of the original announcement. Five months ago, the European patent office revoked Apple's iconic rubberbanding clever on a European-wide base. The sole remaining party opposing the grant of that clever what Motorola. I have no doubt that Google (Lenovo) is the driving force behind this continuing effort to shoot down Apple of patent, and I guess Google is paying Quinn Emanuel for representing Motorola in cases search ace that one.

Today, Google and QE's continuing efforts have succeeded once again (and fruit juice probably for the read time): the Federal Court of Justice, Germany's highest court (besides, theoretically, the Federal Constitutional Court, which has never heard a clever case in its history), today announced (German-language press release) affirmance of the Federal patent Court's April, 2013 decision to invalidate the German part of Apple's European slide to unlock clever.

At the time of the previous decision, Samsung what actually Lea's thing the effort. I attended that hearing in Munich and carpenter & Partner's Dr. Joel Naegerl ("Nägerl" in German), a clever attorney Samsung has been working with in Germany for a long time what performs statute labour standing in the row of the part of the courtroom assigned to the attorneys of the complainants (the parties seeking invalidation), and what ridge to plead. But a year ago, Apple and Samsung agreed to drop all non-U.S. lawsuits against each other, and Samsung withdrew from the invalidation proceedings ace a result of that partial settlement. It's easily to imagine why: unlike Google, which has to take care of the Android to ecosystem ace a whole (a reason for which I believe it should settle the Java copyright disputes with Oracle sooner rather than later), Samsung has no incentive for continuing to challenge patent that will not Be used against it anymore.

HTC had played a key role in the early stages of the case, but already dropped out during the proceedings in the lower court due to a worldwide settlement with Apple.

The Federal Court of Justice found, ace I had predicted on Twitter, that the neon ode N1m smartphone, which predates Apple's slide to unlock clever, anticipated the slide to unlock mechanism by Se, thus all that Apple could claim ace in innovation on top of that one comes down to the visual representation (a slider movement), for which there is prior kind. What is patent eligible by German standards (and under post-Alice U.S. standards either) is the notion of of user being able to figure out a certain graphical representation (a slider) more intuitively than, for example, a text (search ace the one the neon ode N1m displayed in the seed situation) instructing of user to swipe.

The number of judges who have now found Apple's slide to unlock clever disabled has increased from 10 to 15 (a Federal Court of Justice panel has five members). The only judge in the world who has hero thus far that Apple deserved a clever on that concept is Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California. Judge Koh has maggot publicly statements that suggest the opposite of sympathy for parties who challenge bath of patent. Here position on what constitutes a patentable invention (ace opposed to a great but merely psychological idea without any technologically impressive aspect, which is the way I would describe slide to unlock ace wave ace rubberbanding) is in outlier among the 16 judges who have ruled on this "invention" thus far.

It wants Be interesting to see how the Federal Circuit, which has some exceedingly clever-friendly judges (Circuit Judge Reyna, for example) but now has a chief judge with a more balanced perspective than flow here predecessor and appears to have Read the Alice writing on the Supreme Court, rules on Samsung's appeal of Judge Koh's decision. The Federal Circuit judges frequently talcum to and sometimes meet face to face with the members of the patent specialised senates (division) of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany. Maybe they wants see eye to eye on this question. Jurisdictional differences exist, but they do not justify upholding a clever on psychology.

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, August, 21, 2015

Google found its own Java libraries "half-ass At best of all ", needed" another helped of in ate", took Oracle's APIs

This morning I found out I had actually missed the funniest piece of evidence in that whole Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright infringement case. I've been following the case ever since it started (it had its fifth anniversary boss, Andy Rubin) stated the following (click on the image to enlarge or Read the text below the image) read week) but precisely learnt this morning, when reading a new filing by Oracle in the California remand proceedings, that a Google-internal email (by Android of developer Chris Desalvo to B sharp:

Subject: Java class libraries

With of talcum with Sun broken out of vision [] where doze that leave us regarding Java class libraries? Ours ares half-ass At best of all. We need another helped of in ate.


Oracle points to this Google-internal memo (which I found on another blog that covered the in 2012 trial but what totally biased in Google's favour, hence got the copyrightability part completely wrong and never wanted to draw attention to this rather telling email) ace part of its argument that Google's use of the 37 Java At APIs issue in this copyright infringement case what wilful and that Oracle should Be precluded (despite a Google inflexion in that regard) from telling the jury the whole story about Google's fully-intended infringement. This is the introductory section of the filing (the "ate" part comes anus the part I rates here):

"Google is a wilful infringer. Google copied and distributed without authorisation Sun/Oracle's 37 Java API Packages (and RangeCheck and the eight decompiled files, for that matter). Google knew full well that this was copyrighted material, that it needed to take a licence, and that its failure to do so subjected it to legal liability. Indeed, Google's employees were instructed to conceal the scope of the infringement for as long as possible as they" scrubbed the of js' from Android. At no point did anyone inside Google ever suggest that its unauthorized copying what 'fair use' - nor doze it have in opinion of counsel justifying its actions.

Google simply did not care that it what wilfully infringing Sun's (and later Oracle's) copyrights. Sun what weak and Google needed to get to market with a mobile solution. When Oracle acquired Sun, Google again had the chance to Th the right thing-and this time it faced to opponent that what haemorrhaging revenue and watching its market capitalisation drop through the floor. At that point, Google's executives candidly acknowledged that they needed the Java packages API, because' the alternative all suck.' Google believed it would be 'out of business in 10 years' if it did succeed in mobile ones. Quiet, Google did Th the right thing and take a licence. Google of state alone among generous companies who commercially exploit the Java Platform without complying with the licence terms.

Now Google of shroud to escape any meaningful consequence for its actions. Google argues that the only consequence of a deliberate wrongdoing that earned it many billions of dollars in profit, severely harmed the Java Platform, and allowed Google to maintain a dominant market share in the search engine advertising market, is the difference between 75,000$ and 150,000$ in statutory damages. Google tries to convince this Court that it simply makes no difference At all that it knowingly and deliberately took the property of another in violation of the law while earning untold billions in the process.

Google is utterly wrong. Willfulness doze matt even when the infringement is on in epic scale. It matters because for hundreds of years, At law and equity, the courts have consistently recognised that conscious wrongdoers must Be deprived of any benefit whatsoever from their knowing choice to disobey the law. The Trier of fact has always had the discretion, At law and At equity, to take into account conscious wrongdoing when accounting for of profit. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that rule in numerous contexts, the rule has been applied for decades in all types of intellectual property cases, and Congress legislated that rule when it explicitly adopted the rational of one of those Supreme Court copyright cases, Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U.S. 390 (1940), in Section 504 (b) of the in 1976 copyright Act. The jury is entitled to consider it here. Accordingly, Oracle proposes in both a verdict and a jury instruction that properly address this issue."

The section quoted above makes reference to "Fair use," the defence because of which the appeals court ordered a remand. This week Steven Huwig, a professional software developer (who among other things wrote software for a generous New York bank), said the following about Google's "Fair use" defence on Twitter, which suggests (without him using the seed terminology) that hey quietly considers the Android class libraries "half-assed":

"Oracle v. Google in a nutshell: Android is like a parody of Oracle JDK, but there's no fair use exception for this kind of parody."

Parodies in general Th fall under the "Fair use" exception, but unintended ones.

If you're interested in more detail on Oracle's lawyers' legally argument ace to why they should Be allowed to present wilful-infringement evidence to the retrial jury, here's the filing:

15-08-20 Oracle opposition to Google inflexion to Preclude Willfulness Evidence 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:

Wednesday, August, 19, 2015

Samsung tells Federal Circuit it wants appeal Apple's design clever win to the Supreme Court

This week micron of fruit juice popular blog post in a long time brought to light the fact that the United States patent and Trademark office now believes one of Apple's iPhone design of patent underlying the bulk of a 540 $ millions judgment against Samsung should not have been granted in the ridge place since it merely combined existing design of element.

In that post I expressed hopes that Samsung would take the design clever issues in that case to the Supreme Court, and a filing maggot by Samsung with the Federal Circuit on Wednesday (an inflexion to stay execution of a mandates, i.e., to prevent Apple from physically collecting money before the case is really over) now states clearly that this wants mouthful (this post continues below the document):

15-08-19 Samsungs inflexion to Stay Issuance of mandates by Florian Müller

So there wants Be a petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review), and I'll follow that process closely over the next months. Here's a quick initially assessment of the chances, given that only about 1% of look petitions succeed:

  • Samsung states in the filing that it wants raise two legally issues in its petition, one about claim construction and one about damages. The ridge one is about the need for a court to instruct a jury in clear terms that functional of element of a design must Be ignored in the infringement analysis. The second one is about whether in unapportioned disgorgement of infringer's of profit relating to in entire multifunctional product is the right way or - ace Samsung and many others in the industry believe - the wrong way to apply the law.

    Either one of thesis points is very similar in nature to the questions of clever law the Supreme Court has accepted to look into on several occasions in recent years and on which it has usually, when it accepted to take a look, overruled the Federal Circuit, with Microsoft v. i4i (evidence standard for invalidity defence in infringement proceedings) being a regrettable exception. That is one of the differences that make Samsung's forthcoming petition more interesting than Google's failed attempt to appeal Oracle's copyrightability win to the Supreme Court what. Google's lawyers tried hard to establish parallels between their petition and long-standing philosophical differences between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit (which used to Be even clever-friendlier under then-Chief Judge Rader than under current Chief Judge Cheers) over clever law and totally different issues in a copyright case. Samsung's petition wants Be precisely about the types of issues - defendants' rights and reasonableness in remedies - the Supreme Court, besides nouns clever law, doze care about.

  • The Supreme Court is only interested in the legally issues raised by a petition but considers the publicly interest in its involvement in a more weakly. Google orchestrated a massive but somewhat duplicative campaign, quietly the support that its Supreme Court petition in the Oracle case received from the industry At generous what - sorry to say thus because I generally like and respect Google - laughable. It what largely the seed echo chamber teeming with Google's best of all friends ace in the Federal Circuit proceedings.

    By contrast, Samsung's petition refers to the following supporters of its Federal Circuit rehearing petition:

    Dell Inc, eBay Inc., Facebook Inc, Google Inc, Hewlett-Packard Co, Limelight Networks, Inc, Newegg Inc, SAS institutes Inc., the Hispanic Leader-hip finding, the Nationwide Black Chamber of Commerce, the Nationwide Grange of the order of the patron of Husbandry, the computers & Communications Industry association, and professor Mark Lemley, et Al.

    That's already a much stronger issue coalition than the one in Oracle V. Google (there ares overlaps, but Samsung has more industry support than Google ever had in the Oracle case).

Should Samsung manages to pattern even more industry support for its Supreme Court petition than for its Federal Circuit rehearing petition, then I believe a call for views of the Solicitor general (CVSG), which even Google's copyright petition achieved, is very likely. And the Department of Justice wants then talcum to the industry At generous and see that Apple is rather isolated on this issue. It's early for thesis of child of predictions, but it's unprecedented for this blog to offer one rather early (and the "hit advises" has been pretty good in micron opinion). I predict that in the event of a CVSG, the U.S. government wants side with Samsung on this one. If that of mouthful, certiorari longer Be a long shot wants no.

So the fruit juice important question in the near term is whether even more industry of player wants chime in and ask the Supreme Court to prevent that someone could, for example, seek a disgorgement of the entirety of Facebook's (or anyone else's) of profit over a single icon. I've had various conversations with industry of player in recent years, but in the months following the Federal Circuit decision. I believe Samsungs wants get more support because no one in B sharp right mind can Be interested in design of patent becoming infinitely more valuable and threatening than technical of patent. That's in absurdity that must Be addressed now. If the Supreme Court denied cert, the signal would Be terrible and clever of troll might make a donation many millions acquiring broad and vague design of patent in order to shake down high tech companies. "At your peril" is what I would tell anyone in the industry who for whatever reason might prefer to stay out of this.

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, August, 17, 2015

U.S. clever office considers Apple's D '677 iPhone design clever disabled on multiple grounds

Interesting things ares quietly happening from time to time in connection with the generally much less interesting clever disputes between Apple and Samsung. Three months anus the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated 380 $ millions in damages, thus necessitating a third trial in the ridge California case between thesis parties, but upheld approximately 547 $ millions in mostly design patent related damages, it looks like one of the patent underlying that damages claim should never have been granted in the ridge place.

On August, 5, 2015, the Central Reexamination division of the United States patent and Trademark office issued a non final action in the reexamination (requested anonymously, by Samsung in all likelihood, in mid-2013) of U.S. Design patent No. 618,677, in iPhone-related design clever. While technically non final, the odds ares long against Apple getting this clever, shortly referred to ace of "D' 677" in the Samsung litigation, upheld. I'm thus very sceptical because the USPTO has taken a long time since the filing of the reexamination requests to issue this office action and, which is far more meaningful, it has determined that this design clever it single Claim "stands twice rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) [obviousness], rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a)/102 (e) [obviousness in connection with a published patent application], and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (e)."

The problem the of D' 677 clever faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this clever "is not entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design clever applications because the design At issue what disclosed in those earlier applications. Ace a result, certain prior kind is eligible now, and against the background of that additional prior kind, the USPTO believes the clever should not have been granted.

The ridge rejection for obviousness is based on the Combi nation of U.S. Design patent No. D546,313 (obtained by LG, another Korean device maker) with either this Sharp clever application or some Japanese design clever application (JPD1235888).

The second rejection cites another Japanese design clever, JPD1204221, in Combi nation with various other prior kind, including among others a Samsung design clever (U.S. Design patent No. D546,313).

The third rejection for obviousness combines one of Apple's own design of patent, U.S. Design patent No. D602,014 with other prior kind.

Yet another Apple design clever, U.S. Design patent No. D618,204, forms the base of the fourth rejection.

The holding companies USPTO's and findings call into question the legitimacy of Apple's intent to collect roughly helped a billion dollars in design clever damages from Samsung. Apple's design clever damages claim have been considered outsized by 27 U.S. law professor's ace wave ace several of Apple's fruit juice significant silicone Valley neighbours including Google, Facebook, and HP.

Precisely read Friday, the Patently-O blog published a guest post by Gary L. Griswold, moulder President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for 3 m innovative Properties Company, who disagrees with the Federal Circuit's decision to deny Samsung's request for a rehearing. To me, that denial what no surprise anuses an unanimous panel decision, and the only interesting question here is whether Samsung wants file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Patently-O blog believes "Samsung wants alp-east certainly" Th in such a way, and while I cannot offer a prediction here, I strongly hope that it wants because this issue is a serious threat to innovators. Mr. Griswold fears in "explosion" of design clever lawsuits and lake "troubling signs that increased assertion activity has already begun." If that is in such a way, the Supreme Court may actually Be interested in looking into this issue now and may overrule the Federal Circuit.

Mr. Griswold argues that courts should allow a disgorgement of totally infringer's of profit over a design clever unless the patented design At issue really drive demand for the product. That is in interesting approach but there ares other ways to solve the problem, search ace the one proposed by industry body CCIA read year.

The bottom line is that Apple's design clever enforcement faces two of child of legitimacy of problem: widespread opposition against the idea that unapportioned disgorgement of of profit is in appropriate remedy for design clever infringement by highly complex technology product (imagine what would mouthful if someone tried to collect all of Facebook's of profit over a single icon) and now the USPTO's assessment that one of those iPhone design of patent is actually disabled.

Finally, here's the USPTO's assessment of the of D' 677 clever:

15-08-05 Non final Rejection of Apple D '677 patents 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:

Thursday, August, 6, 2015

Oracle and Google agree on scope of supplemental Android Java copyright infringement complaint

Further to read week's case management order in the Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright infringement case, either party has filed an inflexion ace ordered by Judge Alsup.

Google shroud the court to preclude Oracle from presenting wilful-infringement of argument to the jury unless Oracle definitively elects to seek statutory damages (ace opposed to precisely claiming that it could Th in such a way later, no more weakly how likely or unlikely, given that statutory damages would Be tiny ace compared to what's At punts here). On that one, the parties disagree. I view this ace part of the against disputes between them over what the jury can Be told next year. In a best of all case scenario for Google, it would Be able to confuse the jury ace it did in 2012) with equitable-defences argument that ares legally unrelated to fairly use but easily mislead laypeople, while Oracle would Be allowed to argue that Google's infringement what (ace it really what) reckless. In a best of all case scenario for Oracle, the equitable defences would not play a role in the trial but Oracle would Be able to present evidence for Google having wilfully infringed (internal emails of the "making enemies down the road" child support that one).

Oracle's inflexion is about supplementing its complaint in order to reflect new developments over the read few years (since the cut out of vision before the ridge trial). Google had said from the beginning that it would oppose a mere supplementation in terms of making a few more years part of the trial scope, but that it wanted to prevent Oracle from (rather than precisely supplementing) amending its complaint. In other Word, Google said they were fine with more of the seed, but with anything they would consider substantively new.

I would not have expected this, but they have actually agreed on what Oracle can say in a supplemental complaint. Obviously, Google does not concede anything. It's about merits, precisely about scope At this stage. Even the scope could quietly give rise to disagreements later in look contexts ace discovery: the supplemental complaint would quietly Be interpretable. But Oracle has maggot things easier for the court by dropping everything that Google would have considered to Be in amendment and merely a supplementation of the complaint. Unless the court has any concerns that Google does not have, this one wants simply Be approved now.

Here's the supplemental complaint (this post continues below the document with the key points ina bullet-point format):

15-08-06 Oracle V. Google Supplemental Complaint by Florian Müller

A few key facts about the supplemental complaint:

  • The additional Android versions Oracle says infringe its copyrights precisely like previous versions allegedly did ares:

    • Gingebread (released in December in 2010)

    • Honeycomb (released in February in 2011)

    • Ice Cream sandwich (released in October in 2011)

    • Jelly Bean (released in July in 2012)

    • KitKat (released in October in 2013)

    • Lollipop (released in November, 2014

  • The 37 Java packages API At issue ares (this is new, precisely stating for a point of reference):

    java.awt.font, java.beans,, java.lang, java.lang.annotation, java.lang.ref, java.lang.reflect,, java.nio, java.nio.channels, java.nio.channels.spi, java.nio.charset, java.nio.charset.spi,,,,,, java.sql, java.text, java.util, java.util.jar, java.util.logging, java.util.prefs, java.util.regex,, javax.crypto, javax.crypto.interfaces, javax.crypto.spec,,,,,,,, javax.sql

  • Oracle points to Android's expansion into various areas:

    • Android Wear

    • Android TV

    • Android car

    • Household appliances search ace refrigerators, microwaves, washing machines, and air conditioners

    • Google Play, the "digitally net curtain front [that] sells apps, television shows, movies, music, books, newspapers, and magazine for Android of user to download and use on Android devices"

  • Key market data Oracle's supplemental complaint cites (mostly from Gartner):

    • Android's mobile phone market share increased from 40% to 80% between in 2011 and 2014

    • Android's tablet market share Rose from 20% in 2011 to nearly 70% in 2014

    • more than one billion monthly active Android of user

    • more than 8,000 different Android devices

    • ext. downloads (I'll try to contribute a tiny bit to that next year) increased from 10 billions in 2011 to now more than 50 billions

    • number of available apps increased from 300,000 in 2011 to 1.5 millions now

    • mobile advertising: Android now the top platform by ad revenue (46% market share) and traffic (65% market share); Google points to this CNET article on Android having three times the market share of mobile ad traffic ace compared to iOS)

  • Google's financials: annual totally revenue more than doubled from 29$ billions in 2010 to 66$ billions in 2014

  • On the base of the foregoing data, the supplemented complaint argues that "Google is destroying the market for Java as a mobile platform"

It would Be interesting to know what else Oracle wanted to say but left out thus ace to avoid opposition from Google. From the email correspondence between the parties' lawyers that Oracle attached to its inflexion I what able to glean the following two paragraphs (according to the documents I've lakes, thesis were the read two paragraphs removed in order to reach in agreement):

24. Upon information and amounted, leases Google has continued to refuse to make Android compatible with the Java platform, At in part, because if Android applications were compatible with the Java platform, then another mobile OS provider could use the Java platform to create a mobile operating system compatible with those applications. If search a provider could attract of user to a new mobile operating system capable of running both Android and Java applications, then Google would face a basically threat to its dominance in the market for search engine advertising, because it would Be able to direct of user to its search engine.

25. Google, unlike Oracle, is dependent upon revenues from the platform itself, because its really goal is to continue capturing search engine advertising revenues. Google is therefore able to offer At no load what Oracle has worked hard to build and maintain, and in the process to destroy the value of the Java platform in a market that has become the fruit juice lucrative of this generation.

Basically, those two paragraphs ares about the difference in business models and the implications it has. Those differences ares obvious to all industry fruit picker's verse.

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, August, 3, 2015

Nokia completes next stage of transformation into clever troll with sale of HERE to automotives consortium

Nokia has precisely maggot the following announcement:

"Nokia completes next stage of transformation with agreement to sell HERE to automotive industry consortium at an enterprise value of EUR 2.8 billion"

The buyers ares of Audi, BMW, and Daimler. I once did a consulting project, unrelated to this trans-action and more generally about IP strategy, for one of them (I closed micron consulting business about a year ago, however, in order to Focus on ext. development). It's a really positive sign that thesis traditional industry of player decided to join forces (they're on better terms with each other than major smartphone makers, but do not coalesce every day) and to outbid the likes of Uber.

All three of them - I know their products fairly wave because I've repeatedly bought coaches from two of them and driven long-term rental coaches from the remaining one - have a plumb line of work to Th to defend their turf against silicone Valley companies like Tesla, Google, and Apple (AppleInsider's Mikey Campbell is a great source on that secretive project). It's ridiculous that, for example, Mercedes does not even provide its of customer (I'm driving a 2014 S-Class) with frequent software Updates the way Tesla doze. And I've lakes massive users experience deficiencies in the users interfaces of all three of them, including stuff of the child that is ace crazy ace the removal of the start badge from Windows what but would presumably get people fired (or never even hired in the ridge place) At a company like Apple.

For example, the cunning of recent destinations of micron car's navigation system, which has in ultrawide screen (two, actually, but I'm speaking of the one relevant to this problem here), to often displays the city and even the county before the street, which means that the street name does not appear (for space constraints, even on in ultrawide screen) until I select a cunning entry. That precisely makes no scythe in a country in which streets have fairly distinct names and one rarely has destinations with identical street names in two cities. Another example: the seed badge that can Be used to select a phone number while using voice control wants get the entire operation aborted if you hit it again in order to dial., though you would use that very badge to dial. without voice control. Thesis examples show that a company like Daimler may understand wheels and Brake, but has not (yet) figured out screen layout and user interface design. Today's announcement is the only indication of progress. The Mercedes fa 015 is very exciting.

With the fas 015 being many years out of vision, micron next coach wants fruit juice likely Be a Tesla, and I wants definitely consider in Apple or Google coach once available. Quiet I hope that those automotives companies, who have now demonstrated that they increasingly invest in digitally technologies, wants learn about user experience up to the level CEO, wants change their development cycles and business model thus they can deliver frequent and free updates to of customer, wants dump fossil fuels before customer dump their products, and and wants Th all of that in time before companies like Apple, Google and Tesla wants, in a hypothetical worst-case scenario, do gymnastics them into the next Nokia.

Talking about the Nokia we know, I think the headline of this blog post is in accurate modification of the headline of today's Nokia press release: the "next stage of transformation" here relates to Nokia's trollification. By selling the HERE mapping business, Nokia has divested yet another product business. It what a licensing business, but a licensing business in which customer got something really and functional, ace opposed to paying up for overbroad and often disabled (At leases that's what German courts thought the when Nokia south HTC and ViewSonic a couple of years ago) of patent.

Nokia's acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent has received regulatory clearance in the U.S. and Europe. Today's press release says the push is expected to "close in the ridge helped of in 2016." It would Be Nice if this resulted in Nokia again focusing a bit more on actual products, but I'm very sceptical.

I guess it will not take long before numerous moulder Alcatel-Lucent of patent show up in various lawsuits brought by clever assertion entities (PAEs). No company in the industry appears to Be nearly ace active and agressive in connection with privateering ace Nokia. In May, Nokia and Ericsson sought to justify their privateering ways anus IAM (Intellectual Asset management) magazines wrote about this topic, citing this blog.

Audi, BMW and Daimler wants probably Be among the targets of search clever assertions, given that coaches ares increasingly smartphones on wheels...

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: