3 ms·
I can't believe Microsoft is licensing all of them, otherwise they wouldn't care about them as much. In fact, they probably wouldn't have even bothered to buy
by juiceandjuice 15y ago
I can't believe Microsoft is licensing all of them, otherwise they wouldn't care about them as much. In fact, they probably wouldn't have even bothered to buy them, especially if they thought the DoJ would rule in the way that they did.
The DoJ ruling merely means they can't really leverage those patents against Google to stifle them more, which I'm sure the legal departments of Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle would have loved to do. It means those patents are less of a threat, but it wasn't a win for Google either.
I don't agree that the DoJ would have made the same decision in the case that Google had exclusively won the patents. I think the litigious nature of Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft, especially towards Android, had quite a bit to do with that decision.
I feel like Google is pulling the same thing they pulled with the FCC's 700Mhz Spectrum auction: Highlighting the faults of the system, advocating for consumers, getting some help from the government and trying to get their way without actually paying for it.
- cube13 15y ago>The DoJ ruling merely means they can't really leverage those patents against Google to stifle them more, which I'm sure the legal departments of Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle would have loved to do. It means those patents are less of a threat, but it wasn't a win for Google either. No. The DoJ ruling means that they can't leverage the patents against Linux. The OIN patent license only applies to Linux code. That doesn't necessarily apply to the Android UI, for example. That's the primary reason that I think the DoJ would have made the same ruling. It gives the Linux code the same protections that they had with Novell.