6 ms·

I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewh

I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of their likelihood of winning). His take: [0] > ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid > Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed. Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity. [0] - http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-itc-staff.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-...

neya 8y ago
Florian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs - Samsung vs Apple, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Google, Oracle vs Google and many others.
- dkonofalski 8y ago
  Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
  - geodel 8y ago
    I don't think he had better understanding. He was making big claims about how Oracle is going to win billions in Oracle vs Google patent case. And then all Oracle patents went doing the drain. He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
  - paulgb 8y ago
    Are there things they copied from the guidebook that you feel are more valid subjects of patent protection than rounded edges?
    - dkonofalski 8y ago
      Maybe not individually, but, as a collection of choices, absolutely. Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. The guidebook wasn't simply about the physical design either. It included large portions of the iPhone OS UI along with a checklist of whether or not those items had been implemented or copied yet. (Edit: Not exactly what I was looking for but this is part of it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...) In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
      - tooltalk 8y ago
        >Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju... Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no. > Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer. ever heard of LG Prada?
- AtlasLion 8y ago
  I'm really impressed people are still listening to this guy, he has been outed multiple times before. http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-death/ http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-deat...
  - oflannabhra 8y ago
    Do you have another source you can recommend?
- oflannabhra 8y ago
  I was unaware of his history of bias. Is there another source who reports as in depth on the proceedings as he does?
gpm 8y ago
I wouldn't Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong. (Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 (Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ (Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-.. https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-.... (More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257 Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem. (This is a copy and paste from my previous comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647)
- fxfan 8y ago
  There is no source on 'paid by microsoft'. The article you linked just links another (dead) article. Please quote original sources, not 'he said she said'
  - gpm 8y ago
    Here's the original source for oracle: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf The original source for Microsoft is Mueller: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of... I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.
    - fxfan 8y ago
      Wow you're shamelessly stretching the definition. He particularly worked on a study commissioned by Microsoft. That does not make him a paid shill
shmerl 8y ago
He is not really anti-Qualcomm, but rather very pro-Apple, no matter how wrong Apple is. So I wouldn't use him as a valid source on this.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

neya 8y ago

Florian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs - Samsung vs Apple, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Google, Oracle vs Google and many others.

dkonofalski 8y ago
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
- geodel 8y ago
  I don't think he had better understanding. He was making big claims about how Oracle is going to win billions in Oracle vs Google patent case. And then all Oracle patents went doing the drain. He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
- paulgb 8y ago
  Are there things they copied from the guidebook that you feel are more valid subjects of patent protection than rounded edges?
  - dkonofalski 8y ago
    Maybe not individually, but, as a collection of choices, absolutely. Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. The guidebook wasn't simply about the physical design either. It included large portions of the iPhone OS UI along with a checklist of whether or not those items had been implemented or copied yet. (Edit: Not exactly what I was looking for but this is part of it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...) In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
    - tooltalk 8y ago
      >Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju... Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no. > Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer. ever heard of LG Prada?
AtlasLion 8y ago
I'm really impressed people are still listening to this guy, he has been outed multiple times before. http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-death/ http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-deat...
- oflannabhra 8y ago
  Do you have another source you can recommend?
oflannabhra 8y ago
I was unaware of his history of bias. Is there another source who reports as in depth on the proceedings as he does?

gpm 8y ago

I wouldn't Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong. (Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 (Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ (Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-.. https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-.... (More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257 Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem. (This is a copy and paste from my previous comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647)

fxfan 8y ago
There is no source on 'paid by microsoft'. The article you linked just links another (dead) article. Please quote original sources, not 'he said she said'
- gpm 8y ago
  Here's the original source for oracle: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf The original source for Microsoft is Mueller: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of... I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.
  - fxfan 8y ago
    Wow you're shamelessly stretching the definition. He particularly worked on a study commissioned by Microsoft. That does not make him a paid shill

shmerl 8y ago

He is not really anti-Qualcomm, but rather very pro-Apple, no matter how wrong Apple is. So I wouldn't use him as a valid source on this.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]