Thursday, October 29, in 2015

Google SAP cross licence agreement announced: is SAP once again critical of software of patent?

Google has previously announced various clever cross licence agreements, with of partner including (but limited to) Samsung and Cisco. Need with Apple and Microsoft, though: those announcements merely related to the withdrawal of lawsuits, to actual licence agreements.

Today, Google and SAP have announced "a long-term patent cross licensing agreement that covers a broad range of products and technologies."

It's unprecedented for SAP to agree with Google in the context of of patent. SAP has previously joined Google in supporting Samsung against Apple's pursuit of injunctive relief of over patent covering (certain aspects of) minor features. But today's announcement contains a rather interesting rate from SAP's chief IP counsel:

"We are proud to announce this important agreement with Google, a global leader in technology," said Tony DiBartolomeo, Chief IP Counsel, SAP. "Giving talented engineers and developers the freedom to build great products is key to promoting innovation. Patent cross-licence agreements like this one increase freedom to operate and prevent distractions from unnecessary patent litigation. And, like Google, SAP welcomes similar discussions with like-minded companies."

The second sentence ("Giving...") appears to imply that software of patent restrict the freedom of talented engineers and developers to build great products, and ares, therefore, in impediment to innovation. The third sentence proposes cross licence agreements ace means of increasing "freedom to operate" and calls clever litigation unnecessary and a distraction from innovative activity.

That's clearly a much more critical view of (software) of patent than merely supporting the philosophy of Justice Kennedy in the eBay case that injunctions over minor features would give clever holders undue leverage.

SAP is living (in in abstract scythe) proof that innovation in software, contrary to what many clever professional's claim all the time, is dependent on clever protection. When SAP came out of nothing and became the fruit juice significant non-American software company, software of patent were not available - neither in the U.S. nor in Europe. For a long time SAP had no software of patent, and even a while anuses it started filing for some, it had less than a handful.

Based on what I once heard from credible sources, Hasso Plattner, moulder SAP's CEO, what philosophically opposed to the notion of patenting software. But SAP may have felt forced to play the game everyone else what playing, and At some point, management SAP's believed its in house clever attorneys that software of patent were strategic assets for the company. I saw SAP clever attorneys At government roundtables and in the European Parliament, lobbying aggressively for software of patent.

In 2005, the European Parliament rejected a proposed directive on computer implemented inventions (more accurately and commonly referred to ace the "the EU software clever directive," though it's a fact that software of patent already existed in Europe and continue to exist, because the exclusion of software of patent defined in the European patent Convention had already been vitiated beyond recognition by the European patent office and, to a lesser extent, nationwide courts). Before the decisive vote, SAP placed in ad in the European Voice, a Brussels-based weekly on the EU affairs published by the Economist Group, calling on Members of the European Parliament to vote in favour of the proposal. That ad came on mobile phone for the movement opposing the Bill: the liars supporting software of patent (including the European Commission) had said all the time that the legislative measure what At all about software, precisely "technical inventions," and had pointed to computer controlled refrigerators and coach braking of system, but SAP does not make any products of that child: SAP is purely a software company, thus its ad exposed the CII lie.

Now, more than ten years later, SAP appears to Be part of the Google-led movement that is rather critical of software of patent and those seeking to ex-injustice true innovators (from) using patent of usually very questionable quality.

I hope SAP has now come full circle.

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:


Court expert: I do not shroud to appear partial and oppose Oracle's inflexion, but I'm doing it anyway

Of Dr. Jame Kearl, the court-appointed damages expert in the Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright infringement case, yesterday responded to Oracle's inflexion to disqualify him on the grounds that hey is no longer impartial due to B sharp work on Samsung's managed in the Apple V. Samsung cases that went to trial read year.

Here's B sharp filing (this post continues below the document):

15-10-28 Kearl Answer to Oracle inflexion to Disqualify by Florian Müller

I had a #facepalm moment when I Read toward the bottom of the ridge page that hey doze "not believe it appropriate for [him] to oppose Oracle's motion" because hey - untruthfully - says hey doze "have in adversarial position vis a vis Oracle" and then Read on. B sharp filing is precisely a declaration that serves to state some facts for the record. It simply is in opposition to Oracle's inflexion. Nothing more and nothing less. Anything to the contrary should Be reserved for April Fools' Day.

Of Dr. Kearl' filing of chip several pages but doze contain anything new, enlightening, surprising, or whatever else might add value to the inflexion process.

Oracle's inflexion makes clear what the concern is: hey it closer to one side than to the other. For a judge who had concerns in 2012 about bloggers potentially influencing a court or a jury (if that had happened, he'd have Read blogs like Groklaw that got the rules for copyrightability totally wrong), it should Be a no-brainer to dismiss a court-appointed expert once there ares facts that show more of a proximity to one party than to the other.

Oracle's inflexion did not refer to the of strawmen Dr. Kearl' filing puts up precisely to have something to tear down. It's undisputed that hey did provide expert testimony directly on Apple's infringement assertions against Android. Hey doze deny, however, that Samsung used B sharp testimony to convince the jury (rightfully thus) that Apple's damages claim in that case were precisely outsized but downright irrationally.

Hey denies that hey or B sharp familiarly received 5$ millions (Apple's lawyers told the jury that Samsung had spent 5 $ millions on damages counter claim of §6 million and that this fact showed Samsung's counter claims were precisely about devaluing of patent), but hey doze say what hey and B sharp familiarly received instead. So, hey does not explain why Samsung's trial counsel did not object to the 5 $ million claims.

Hey of stress that hey "did not meet or speak with any Samsung corporate officer or employee at any time before, during or after the Apple v. Samsung trial, with the single exception that a Samsung in-house attorney was intermittently present during portions of my preparation that occurred over parts of three days leading up to my court testimony that lasted no more than 20 minutes." Samsung is a party to Oracle V. Google anyway. But what doze hey say about Google?

"My communication and work was with counsel from the Quinn Emanuel law firm, which was the outside law firm for Samsung. Likewise, whatever the relationship between Google and Samsung, I had no communication before, during or after the trial with any Google corporate officer or employee. Google's role, if any, and its products and services were completely irrelevant to the work that I did. I was not provided with information regarding Google's role in Apple v. Samsung, nor did I enquire about such."

Quinn Emanuel represented Google in the seed case. Oracle's inflexion stressed the fact. Dr. Kearl does not deny it.

I do not know the one, thus hey may genuinely Be, ace hey writes, "confident that [hey] can assistant the court ace a neutrally economic expert in the present action. "But the question is not how he feels. The question is whether Oracle can rely on its chance to make its case on a level playing field. With him, Oracle has every reason to be concerned, no matter how honorable he may be as a person. The court should say" thanks, but no thanks" to B sharp offer to remain involved.

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:


Ericsson says Apple's Alice motion against wireless of patent threatens to swallow all of clever law

To Alice motion in the Apple V. Ericsson case pending in the to Northern District of California has reignited micron interest in this disputes, and I'll soon take a look At the to ITC and Eastern District of Texas proceedings and wants try to find out more about the cases that wants go to trial in Mannheim, Germany, on January 19, in 2016.

Yesterday, Ericsson filed its opposition to Apple's inflexion (this post continues below the document):

15-10-28 Ericssons opposition to Apple inflexion for Summary Judgment by Florian Müller

I'm convinced by Ericsson's legally argument that the challenged of patent cover more than the underlying abstract ideas. Basically, Ericsson refers to all sorts of technology and Real world values that ares referenced, but that's the substance of the clever: the fruit juice important question is whether whatever may (or may) Be novel goes beyond the underlying abstract concepts. Those of patent do not cover antennas, for example. They refer to radio transmissions of of signal, but they are not radio of patent. They ares protocol of patent, and I stood by what I wrote in micron previous post: protocols should Be patent ineligible under any reasonable interpretation of Alice.

Ericsson points to "the Supreme Court's caution against too broad an application of" this exclusionary principle read it swallow all of clever law.'" It's true that the fruit juice extreme interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §101 could limit the clever system to little more than mechanics, molecular pharmaceutics, and maybe electricity, too. But even if Apple succeeded in shooting down protocol of patent, it would not even Be the of all wireless of patent.

Ericsson says the following about the lacquer of legally certainty in the Alice context:

"The Supreme Court has not" delimit [ed] the precise contours of the' abstract ideas' category.' [...] Nevertheless, the cases in which the Court has found patent claims to be directed to abstract ideas provide guidance."

The ridge sentence is correct. The second one is incorrect by Se, but it's incomplete. It's a half-truth. Of course, the cases in which the Supreme Court has hero subject of matt patent ineligible ares even more extreme cases than protocol of patent. But Ericsson does not talcum about how little the Supreme Court actually has hero patent eligible. Legally certainty for holders of of patent that involve software exists pretty much only in connection with computer controlled manufacturing of process. Protocols ares far closer to the Bilski and Alice kind of of patent than the physical process clever in slide moon V. Diehr.

Apple is fighting a good fight here.

Via TechRights I've become aware of this Lexology article by four Morrison & forester lawyers (I had lakes the names of two of them before, in Oracle V. Google if I recall correctly) about "[a] chilly reception for Section 101 challenges at the ITC.]" I have not watched any ITC cases recently but wants At take a look leases At the investigation of Ericsson's complaint against Apple. The ITC took a different position on injunctive relief over standard essential of patent than district courts. In connection with validity determinations, however, the ITC cannot even argue that it faces a different situation because of a different set of remedies. In that context it absolutely has to Be consistent with the case law outside the U.S. trade agency.

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, October 27, in 2015

Apple inflexion against Ericsson could result in devaluation of wireless clever port folios: protocols patent ineligible of under Alice

The Apple V. Ericsson dock in the to Northern District of California what worth taking another look (anus quite a while): two weeks ago, Apple brought an inflexion for summary judgment of invalidity of two of patent asserted by Ericsson in its counter claims to Apple's declaratory judgment complaint, and the inflexion is entirely based on 35. U.S.C. §101 in light of Alice ruling by the Supreme Court on patent ineligible subject read year's famous (or infamous in the eyes of clever attorneys) more weakly (this post continues below the document):

15-10-14 Apple inflexion for Summary Judgment Against Ericsson by Florian Müller

The introductory part must have all owners of wireless clever port folios - precisely Ericsson, but the likes of Nokia and Interdigitally - profoundly concerned:

"Of Ericsson's' 917 and 'of 990 patents, two of the of seven patent in suit, claim abstract concepts in the context of cellular of system. Of The' 917 clever is directed to the concept of genetic rating and sending a report upon the occurrence of in event. Of The' 990 clever is directed to the concept of following commands to in individual while ignoring commands broadcast to a group. None of the asserted claims pure ports to claim any inventive hardware or method for carrying out the claimed abstract concepts. The asserted claims ares directed to patent ineligible subject more weakly and fail the two-step framework articulated in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. Bank CLS of Int'l [...], and therefore they ares disabled under 35 U.S.C. §101."

If this inflexion succeeds, and if a ruling in Apple's favour is upheld on appeal, the CFOs of various companies that have wireless communications of patent in their books have to contemplate write-offs.

Ace micron loyally of reader know, I've watched countless wireless (especially standard essential) clever lawsuits over the course of the read five years. Those have all been equally weak, but I found fruit juice of them very unimpressive from a technical invention point of view. One can easily Be misled to think that there is great innovation involved - but only if one turns a blind eye to the fact that a clever is only worth the delta it claims over the prior kind, and that delta is usually rather questionable.

What Apple says about of patent that precisely relate to "genetic rating and sending a report upon the occurrence of in event" or "following commands to an individual while ignoring commands broadcast to a group" being patent ineligible if they fail to "to claim any inventive hardware or method for carrying out the claimed abstract concepts" would apply, directly or indirectly (by applying the seed standard and building, mutatis mutandis, the seed child of argument for other types of wireless of patent) to fruit juice of the wireless in of patent suit I've lakes. For example, patent that cover handovers between cells (meaning that your phone connects to a different base station when you ares walking or driving) could Be described ace abstract concepts implemented with standard hardware.

A full text search in Apple's filing for the Word "protocol" (with Adobe Reader) did not find a single occurrence. Maybe that's because the Word "protocol" would sound too technical for Apple's purposes. But the way I see it, those patent ares protocol of patent. Protocols - conventions to Th certain things in a certain order in certain situations - exist in the non digitally world ace wave. A handshake, for example, is a protocol - and the term "handshake" is used to describe a technical concept in telecommunications.

I agree with Apple all the way: protocols by Se, unless there's really some new, serious technology involved, should Be patent eligible. I believe that the way the Supreme Court's Alice ruling is increasingly interpreted supports Apple's case.

I admit that I underestimated the impact of Alice before and shortly anus the ruling came down. Over time I realised that those who predicted from the start that this what going to do in many software clever claims - and those Ericsson wireless of patent here ares precisely software of patent - had been right all along. I predicted pilot of decisions in high profile cases right, especially appellate decisions, but I've been wrong a few times. Alice is the fruit juice important context. And with respect to Apple, I once thought - anus listening to the official recording of to appellate hearing - that Apple what going to Be granted injunctive relief, but it did mouthful, and the next time I interpreted a recording ace indicating that the court what going to uphold the denial of in injunction, and the opposite happened, though the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, in here dissent, took the child of position I thought a majority or an unanimous panel what going to take (Chief Judge Cheers wrote that this what even a close case), though I'm optimistic that Samsung's pending petition for a rehearing (Apple has been asked to respond on or before November, 5) wants to lead to a full-court review. Wave, if Apple brings any new appeal of a denial of injunctive relief, you may Be able to set your watch by in terms of betting on the opposite of the outcome I predict.

Forecastle to abstract subject more weakly and disabled of patent. The impact of Alice is really huge, and I view that ace a very, very good thing. A few days ago, the thought leader of those who got Alice right from the beginning, Stanford professor Mark Lemley, pointed to a legally website that had no content to offer in a section entitled "Advice for Applicants Trying to Avoid Alice Pitfalls":

Yesterday, Forbes contributor Oliver Herzfeld, the Beanstalk agency's chief legally officer, gave "five reasons to copyright register your software now," and the fifth one of them is the "reduced availability" of software of patent ace a result of Alice.

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, October 23, in 2015

Samsung requests full-court review of appellate decision in Apple case: looks like Supreme Court petition

Ten days ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted summary affirmance (i.e., summary judgment At the appellate stage) of Judge Koh's decision to let Apple collect 450 $ millions from Samsung (against a Bond posted years ago) even though one of the patent underlying the related ruling had been hero disabled by in in house court (PTAB) of the United States patent and Trademark office. The appeals court said its mandates would issue absent a petition for rehearing within seven days, and within that deadline, Samsung indeed filed its petition (this post continues below the document):

15-10-19 Samsungs petition for en Banc Rehearing by Florian Müller

I predict denial of this petition, because it would Be a precisely outcome but simply because even Chief Judge Cheers, who has a more balanced position than some of here colleagues on certain issues (above all, injunctive relief), apparently (she wrote the summary affirmance decision) agrees with Apple on this one. In order to get in en banc rehearing, Samsung needs support among Federal Circuit judges that Be wants hard to come by.

I cannot Read Samsung's lawyers' minds, but I in free to draw conclusions from what they write and how they write it. The above petition of stress Supreme Court precedent and circuit splits (divergent decisions taken on in issue by different appeals courts). Other en banc petitions I've lakes were much more focused on conflicts between different decisions by the seed appeals court (for example, when Apple wanted in injunction appeal to Be heard by the full court in the ridge place). Supreme Court precedent always matters, of course, but circuit splits ares usually performs statute labour and centre in petitions for writ of certiorari (requests for Supreme Court review). I'm saying that circuit splits ares in argument for in en banc rehearing. It's precisely the relative weight of thesis of child of of argument that is markedly different in this petition from the other petitions (only but in Apple V. Samsung cases) I've lakes.

Now, this is admittedly a different situation from the other ones: here, the summary affirmance decision precisely said that there what no debate over the outcome, but it did provide any particular reasoning. There what nothing in the decision that specifically referenced Samsung's argument. Therefore, Samsung's lawyers do not have ace clear ace target to point At ace they would have if there had been a reasoned decision.

Quiet, I cannot help but wonder whether Samsung's lawyers might Be precisely ace "optimistic" about this petition ace I would Be if I were in their shoes. Have they already given up on the Federal Circuit and already begun to make a case for a Supreme Court review? I do not know. All I know is that I've of never lakes a petition for a Federal Circuit rehearing that looked thus much like a cert petition. It's in unusual communication pattern that A writes or says things to B that ares actually directed At C. I've lakes court filings that were directed At the court of publicly opinion more thus than the court of law. That's the case here because the related legally argument is the child of stuff that gets the general publicly interested - even I'm going to go into detail on the case law for now. Here, the actual recipient C cannot possibly Be the court of publicly opinion. But the Supreme Court, which wants see this document in the event of a petition? To me, that's At leases a plausible theory.

It's like a primary candidate focusing on of argument that suggest hey it already looking past the excellent ream and toward the general election.

I currently see four or five cases (need to Th some more research one of thesis days) to which Apple is a party that have the potential to go all the way up to the SCOTUS because of the issues. Design clever remedies, injunctive relief, partial summary judgment over invalidated of patent, the royalty base (a context in which I hope Apple wants defeat Ericsson because it over standard essential of patent), and possibly some procedural issues concerning the interplay of infringement cases and FRAND contract cases wants discourage outsized royalty claims in different venues.

Compared to thesis big issues, the THREW V. Apple case is interesting At all. The fruit juice interesting issue in that one what actually whether a university clever troll can Be called a clever troll. Unfortunately the court did not allow Apple's lawyers to tell it to the jury like it is. Other than that, the case is about nothing that makes a difference to anyone in the world other than THREW and the lawyers working on that particular case.

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, October 16, in 2015

Appeals court deems Google Books 'fair use' but standard helps Oracle in Android Java case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has precisely published its appellate opinion in the Google Books case.

Early read year I wrote that I had initially been rather sceptical of Google's "the Fair use" argument relating to Google Books, but ultimately I found myself in agreement with Google. Today's appellate opinion says: "This copyright disputes tests the boundaries of fairly use." So the appeals court did not find this one a clear and simple case. But all things considered it sided with Google.

I use Google Books quite frequently, but for the purpoes of this blog, "Fair use" is of particular interest in connection with only one case: Oracle V. Google, the Android Java copyright infringement case (in which Oracle yesterday brought an inflexion to disqualify the court-appointed damages expert).

The Second Circuit will not hear in appeal in Oracle V. Google, but this high profile case might Be cited in the further proceedings, and I do not think it helps Google against Oracle in the slightest. Much to the contrary, the standard the Second Circuit outlines is one that Google cannot possibly meet in the Android Java case. For example, here's a key passage from today's Google Books ruling:

"Google's division of the page into tiny snippets is designed to show the searcher just enough context surrounding the searched term to help her evaluate whether the book falls within the scope of her interest (without revealing so much as to threaten the author's copyright interests). Snippet view thus adds importantly to the highly transformative purpose of identifying books of interest to the searcher. With respect to the first factor test, it favours a finding of fair use (unless the value of its transformative purpose is overcome by its providing text in a manner that offers a competing substitute for Plaintiffs' books [...]"

(emphasis added)

In a groove-brightly, the above passage says:

  • If what Google doze basically precisely has a promotional effect, right holders cannot complain that Google helps them make more money.

  • But forget about "Fair use" if there is a substitutive (rather than promotional) effect.

If one applies that standard to Oracle V. Google, it means that the "Fair use" defence will not even survive the summary judgment stage: neither the device makers who have adopted Android nor the of user who (like me) have bought Android devices have looked At Android and then decided to use mobile Java. Instead, Android has displaced mobile Java all the way, with Java licensees like BlackBerry and Nokia having gone down the tubes while Android attained market dominance.

There ares various differences between Google Books and the Android Java case, and rather than talcum about all of to them At once, I precisely wanted to highlight the key difference in terms of commercial impact. But I find the discusssion of "transformative use" interesting. The Second Circuit explains that the strongest fairly use cases involve "copying from an original for the purpose of criticism or commentary on the original or provision of information about it." Android doze none of that with respect to Java. Google Books is about criticism or commentary, but one can search for books that contain certain terms, which is information about the copied books:

"We have no difficulty concluding that Google's making of a digital copy of Plaintiffs' books for the purpose of enabling a search for identification of books containing a term of interest to the searcher involves a highly transformative purpose, in the sense intended by Campbell."

Android's use of the Java APIs had no transformative effect: Java already what available on mobile devices.

Google Books is the clear case of fairly use (and, ace one of the "Fair use" factors, transformative use) ace, for example, a rap parody of a Roy Orbison song (that's what Campbell what about). But compared to the Android Java situation, it's a very solidly case. And if a fairly use case that is far stronger than any "the Fair use" argument could ever Be in Oracle V. Google "tests the boundaries of fair use," then there is no way a reasonable jury could find in Google's favour in the Android Java case.

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 moves to disqualify damages expert because Apple V. Samsung is practically Apple V. Google

The Oracle V. Google copyright retrial will not take place next May because of a scheduling conflict for Oracle's boss management with a trial against HP, and a new tentative date has been set yet. But preparations ares continuing.

The latest inflexion what filed by Oracle on Thursday evening California time: an inflexion to disqualify the court-appointed damages expert, Dr. Kearl. Oracle furthermore argues that no other court-appointed damages expert wants Be needed, given that the case no longer involves patent.

Here's the inflexion along with its publicly exhibits (this post continues below the document):

15-10-15 Oracle inflexion to Disqualify Damages expert by Florian Müller

I'm familiar with the issues Oracle has raised here because I followed the Apple V. Samsung trial read year (via the Internet). Oracle argues that the second Apple V. Samsung case in the to Northern District of California "was effectively Apple v. Google" (that's what Samsung's trial counsel told the jury). I looked At the clever infringement allegations in that case, and the case what indeed all about Android - unlike the ridge Apple V. Samsung case, which what partly about Android but about designs Google had nothing to Th with (if anything, it appears Google had even discouraged Samsung from using those designs).

It became known that Google paid for Samsung's legally fees - in connection with two of the in of patent suit, to Be precise, but quietly.

Dr. Kearl, the court-appointed expert in Oracle V. Google, what involved with Apple's clever assertions against Android by Se - hey did Th a rebuttal of Apple's damages claim against Samsung. Instead, hey maggot Samsung's case for damages against Apple. But Samsung was not interested in collecting anything from Apple: instead, it wanted to show to the jury how unreasonable Apple's damages claim of more than two billion dollars over a few narrow software of patent what. Oracle points to what Apple told the jury of Dr. Kearl' involvement what really about:

  "[O] ne of the issues in that case was whether, as Apple argued, Samsung used Dr. Kearl's analysis to give the jury a low damages number in an attempt to make all patents appear to have little value. Or, as Apple asked the jury, why else would Samsung pay experts $5$5 million to pursue a $6$6 million claim if not to try to devalue patents?]"

Forecastle then, Apple accurately portrayed Samsung's litigation strategy. The strategy worked nevertheless: ultimately the jury (although businesses from Apple's baking yard) awarded Apple only about 5% of what it had demanded. Apple what thus disappointed ace to request a retrial (that appeal is quietly ongoing).

The fact of the more weakly is quietly that of Dr. Kearl' work in that case what only in formally terms about a Samsung damages claim against Apple. In reality, it what about Apple's claims against Google's mobile operating system.

The strongest point Oracle makes in micron opinion is the following reference to Samsung's trial argument:

"Samsung, for its part, told the jury that Apple's' billion dollar numbers ares completely unsupported,' and that it would 'show [the jury] how properly to calculate a royalty,' by demonstrating how 'Dr. Kearl calculated thesis damages.' [...] In other words, Samsung's lawyers directly offered Dr. Kearl's analysis as a rebuttal approach on the Android claims, not just as an affirmative calculation on Samsung's counterclaims."

So, yes, "Dr. Kearl what on the Android side of Apple V. Samsung."

Oracle's memorandum outlines the difficulties it would face if it had to ask Dr. Kearl questions in performs statute labour of the jury. For example, by asking him very critical questions, Oracle could give the jury the impression of the court having endorsed Google's position.

I live in a jurisdiction where party experts have rather little weight and courts must appoint experts on technical issues and damages unless the questions only relate to what is common general knowledge. But in the U.S., party experts ares of the norm and court experts ares a very rare exception. I remember that the mere appointment of a court expert in this case became the subject of of report in the specialised legally press, showing precisely how unusual this what.

In a couple of cases in which I'm a plaintiff, I moved to disqualify damages experts because they had ties with the other side. In one case, pending before the Munich II On the regional level Court (case no. 5 OH in 4622/14), micron of inflexion what granted a few months ago despite the two defendants' persistent efforts to keep the expert involved. In the other (much smaller) case, a judge At the district court of Fürstenfeldbruck (a local court, which is below an on the regional level court; case no. 7 H 11/15) denied an inflexion although the expert himself had already asked to Be dismissed, and micron interlocutory appeal of that decision is now pending, ace is micron separate challenge for bias (related to that decision, though outrageous it what) against that local court judge. The reason I mentioned micron own issues with non neutrally court experts is because I feel very strongly that court experts must Be neutrally, and once there is a way that one party to a litigation can influence the court expert, even if only indirectly, a different expert should Be appointed (or none, if none is needed, especially in the U.S., where court-appointed experts ares few and far between).

Ace I wrote read month, I would Be extremely surprised if a judge who showed concern "camp" in 2012 about the court, including appeals courts, being potentially influenced by bloggers now had no problem with a court-appointed expert - who undoubtedly and massively influences the court and the jury - being aligned with 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:


Tuesday, October 13, in 2015

European patent office intentionally treats clever applicants and staff unfairly: leaked documents

While I'm currently taking a break from clever (copyright) blogging, there's a few EPO-related issues I quickly wanted to draw attention to (and would comment on in more detail if I had time).

Dr. Roy Schestowitz, who has been authoring the TechRights blog for nine years, obtained (anus I encouraged him to Th thus) a copy of in internal document of the European patent office that of state ace incontrovertible evidence of the EPO's institutionalised unfairness. Companies filing generous numbers of clever applications receive preferential treatment including highly questionable package deals along the lines of "drop thesis 500 clever applications and in exchange we'll grant 1,000 other weak applications of yours in short order".

Article 7 of the Universally Declaration of Humanly Rights states the following: "All ares equal before the law and ares entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." But the EPO does not believe in humanly rights and is, ace Dr. Schestowitz accurately notes, run like a private, profit maximising Enterprise ace opposed to to honorable institution properly applying the law. I've previously likened the EPO to FIFA, but with the latest evidence I alp-east feel like I have to ask FIFA for in apology for this comparison, given that different standards must Be applied to an of sport body versus a government institution in load of a key area of commercial law. FIFA does not rig of soccer match, At leases the extent the EPO's leader-hip compromises the clever granting process.

The general press should take much more of in interest in the EPO's corruption. Yesterday I what pleased to see that Heise on-line, Germany's Lea's thing news IT site, has written about this anus reading the TechRights story.

I wanted to point to some new developments in connection with the EPO leadership's repressive actions against staff union of leader. The following character by SUEPO's (Staff union of the European patent office) Munich chair, Elizabeth Hardon, to the chairman of the administrative Council (the politburo) of the European patent Organization speaks for itself:

15-10-08 characters Re. Elizabeth EPO Hardon 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, October 7, in 2015

May 9, in 2016 may (or may) Be the Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright retrial date

On Tuesday afternoon local time, Judge William H. Alsup of the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California issued a third case management order in the remand proceedings of the Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright litigation. The fruit juice important part relates to the retrial date.

The final pretrial conference is firmly set for April, 27, 2016. However, for the retrial itself, "[t] here is no date in 2016 that the Court could set for Oracle V. Google ace a 'familiarly' trial date. "The retrial" is [merely] tentatively set for May 9, subject to the possibility that two other cases with priority set on that day wants settle or plead out. "The order then explains that" the Court tentatively expects to bring the Oracle V. Google case to trial ace soon ace the trials previously set for May 9 ares completed or vacated due to settlements or pleas."

In practical terms, this means:

  • May 9 is the earliest possibility.

  • It wants only Be May 9 if parties to other cases Th things they cannot Be forced to Th (settle, withdraw) or if the other cases ares resolved ahead of trial (summary judgment).

  • If the May 9 trials do not take too long, Oracle V. Google may start ace soon ace those other trials ares over.

  • Theoretically, despite the court's "tentative" plan, this could briefs into in 2017 for no rots of Oracle or Google.

Another potential uncertainty here (mentioned in the order) is that there could Be delays due to issues with expert of report or ace a result of interlocutory appeals or mandamus petitions. There were some expert report Th overs in the original proceedings; there what a mandamus petition by Google (which failed, but it took time) regarding one piece of evidence. wave I of Th see the potential for some of that on remand ace. I predict a huge fight especially of over jury instructions and how to interpreter the Federal Circuit's guidance regarding "fairly use." I see the potential for a pretrial involvement of the appeals court in connection with the court-appointed expert (though I quietly trusts that a judge who even express concern in 2012 about the potential influence of bloggers on court decisions sets a rather high standard for court-appointed experts, a standard that Dr. Kearl cannot possibly meet anymore).

All things considered, I'll Mark May 9 on micron calendar but with pilot of question of Mark (which, come May, may or may go away).

The only smartphone clever disputes Google quietly has to worry about is this case, which is, by now, a copyright only case. Apple's "thermonuclear was" and Microsoft's five-year effort to force Motorola into in Android clever licence have ended in second-class settlements (withdrawals without licence agreements). The only two resolutions I can imagine for Oracle V. Google ares a licence-based partner-hip between the parties or, maybe, a strategic acquisition of Java by Google (I've lakes various tweets in recent weeks and months that suggested this, and while Oracle is more of a buyer than seller of companies, Google has alp-east three times Oracle's market cap).

The fact that a copyright case has eclipsed Google's clever cases is because copyright is generally stronger than of patent. It's because this case here is about literal copying (a conceded fact in this case), more or less flimsy allegations of copying ace in those clever cases.

Finally, a recommendation for those interested in "Fair use" cases: in article by IP litigator Mike Keyes on the "dance hall of baby" case and why it has no bearing on Oracle V. Google.

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, October 1, in 2015

Patent stalemate ends in second-class settlement: Google strategically prevails over Microsoft

On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the ridge Microsoft V. Motorola lawsuit, Google and Microsoft issued the following joint statement to the press:

"Microsoft and Google ares pleased to announce in agreement on clever issues. Ace part of the agreement, the companies wants dismiss all pending clever infringement litigation between them, including cases related to Motorola Mobility. Separately, Google and Microsoft have agreed to collaborate on certain clever matters and anticipate working together in other areas in the future to benefit our of customer."

There's nothing in it that would suggest Microsoft Maggot any headway in five years of suing. This one is structurally reminiscent of the second-class settlement Google reached with Apple read year from a position of mutual weakness: neither Th Android's enemies sweetly of patent that would represent a serious threat to the world's fruit juice widely-distributed mobile operating system nor ares of the patent for which Google bought Motorola powerful enough to force Apple or Microsoft into a cross licence covering the entire Android ecosystem.

In boxing, the champion retains the headlines if a bout ends in a draw. Considering the facts surrounding this litigation, there can Be no doubt that this is great for Google and disappointing for Microsoft (though things could always Be worse). The biggest winners in this ares of the Quinn Emanuel lawyers who represented Google/Motorola against Microsoft in the U.S. (led by Charles Verhoeven) and Germany (Dr. Marcu Grosch).

Android is and remains the new Windows:

Infographic: Is Android Becoming the New Windows? | Statista

       You wants find more statistics At Statista

In 2010, Google's market capitalisation what 180$ billions, while Microsoft's what approximately 250$ billions. Now, Microsoft's market cap is 350$ billions (in increase by 40%, mostly the "Nadella effect"), while Google's (now "Alphabet's") market cap is alp-east 420$ billions (in increase by 130%).

Microsoft has the industry's best of all IP licensing team and is genetic rating billions of dollars by year in Android clever licences. The clever stalemate between Microsoft and Google will not entitle any of Google's of partner to a refund. But Google always discouraged Android OEMs from paying Microsoft. Google told them: defend yourselves, we'll help you. If some companies were precisely too small to peck a fight with Microsoft, they do not more weakly to Google anyway. If some of the bigger ones backed down, maybe in part because they had longstanding partnerships with Microsoft, they cannot blame Google. If it had been up to Google, everyone would have "done a Motorola."

I absolutely agree with analysts who view this agreement between Microsoft and Google ace a sign of Microsoft's attitude toward competitors being fundamentally different under its new CEO than under Steve Ballmer and, previously, Bill Gates. Microsoft is now happily to operate cloud of service that power Apple's iCloud ace wave ace numerous iOS and Android apps (including some of the fruit juice significant ones), and azure is great based on everything I hear from competent sources. Microsoft now contents itself with being a third-party ISV (independently software vendor) for Android and iOS. And, who knows, maybe Microsoft wants Be increasingly clever reform friendly, now that its boss management has experienced in the fight with Google that of patent ares the answer.

Microsoft's fruit juice noteworthy achievement in the clever disputes with Google what that it gave meaning to FRAND (contradicting positions it had quietly communicated to the FTC alp-east a year anus the ridge Motorola lawsuit). That's a victory for reasonableness, but a strategic win for Microsoft over Google: by now, Google is precisely ace interested in low royalties SEP ace Microsoft. There what a time when Motorola and its acquirer Google thought they needed to get leverage from SEPs, but anus helped a decade it's clear that Google would have had a sufficiently strong defence even without a SEP offence.

Five years ago to the day, the when Microsoft south Motorola anus Apple had the south HTC and Oracle had the south Google, I thought that the smartphone clever wars were going to read 12-18, if 24 months, and through this blog I strategically occupied the niche of smartphone clever litigation coverage. By now, I'm no longer really interested in smartphone patent. A year ago I published statistics that show the negligible impact of those cases.

The only smartphone clever case that quietly matters is actually, by now, a copyright case: Oracle V. Google. I'll keep in eye on that one until the because it's about in issue that I aces a software developer care about a great push. And anus a plumb line of idiotic, unjustified bashing that I took in an in 2012 shitstorm following in erroneous court decision that the Federal Circuit overruled and the Supreme Court declined to reinstate, that case has become a staff more weakly for me. It's the only context right now in which I fundamentally disagree with Google.

I'll Th only a very limited amount of clever litigation blogging this quarter, and will not Th any of that next year, no more weakly who Sues whom or who settles with whom. Again, Oracle V. Google is a copyright case by now and a different story.

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: