3 ms·
Regarding point 1, what's stopping Google from leveraging those patents now, if point 2 allows for even a sliver of potential? I mean, a single function seems t
by Zikes 11y ago
Regarding point 1, what's stopping Google from leveraging those patents now, if point 2 allows for even a sliver of potential? I mean, a single function seems to be causing Google quite a bit of grief in this lawsuit, so that seems to be enough.
Regarding point 3, I had forgotten that part, but I don't quite get the distinction where it affects the "mutually assured destruction" feature of patent libraries. Even though the sword Oracle swings at Google says "copyright" on the hilt rather than "patent", can Google still not file patent-based countersuits regardless? In other words, if Person A and Person B are in a standoff with guns leveled at each other, why would Person A simply allow Person B to stab them instead?
- nickpsecurity 11y agoYou're better off looking at Apple vs Samsung or another case where it's apples to apples in the portfolio. Having leverage doesn't guarantee anything. However, a smaller vendor would likely not have lasted that long or cut a similar deal that preserved the bottom line. So, size of income plus patent portfolio helps. There's been a number of suits and countersuits between companies in similar industries with overlap in portfolio that got resolved way differently than big companies coming after startups or SME's with nothing. It would probably be worth a law student in this area doing a full survey and analysis to see how the variables involved contribute to the situation.