5 ms·

Apple apparently infringed on Nokia's IP which is why they wrote Nokia a multi-billion dollar check plus future royalties. People love to paint Apple as the bi

by Steko 15y ago

Apple apparently infringed on Nokia's IP which is why they wrote Nokia a multi-billion dollar check plus future royalties. People love to paint Apple as the big bad patent bully but they have paid more in patent settlements then all these other companies put together. Apparently they're allowed to violate but Android gets a free pass because, you know, "open".

vogonj 15y ago
this is Google's actual legal reasoning as to why they shouldn't be held liable for contributory patent infringement in Oracle v. Google: "[S]ection 271(c) applies only to offers for sale, sales, and importation, but Google does not sell, offer to sell, or import Android or Android SDK. [...] The ordinary meaning of 'sale' requires transfer of ownership for a price. [...] Android and Android SDK are offered free of charge to anyone who wishes to download them off the Internet, however, and there is no evidence that Google ever receives any consideration in return. That undisputed fact precludes a finding of contributory infringement." http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-update-summary-judgment.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-upda...
- nitrogen 15y ago
  That is just one element of a many-faceted approach to defending Android. It is misleading to suggest that making the observation that Google does not sell Android is equivalent to admitting that there is no better argument available. AFAIK (IANAL), you aren't usually allowed to raise new arguments later on in a trial (which bothers me), so both sides will raise every issue and argument they can think of at the beginning.
X-Istence 15y ago
Google is undercutting Microsoft, Apple, and RIM because they are releasing for free what everyone else HAS to charge for because they don't have income from advertisements to support the R&D required.

by Steko 15y ago

vogonj 15y ago

this is Google's actual legal reasoning as to why they shouldn't be held liable for contributory patent infringement in Oracle v. Google: "[S]ection 271(c) applies only to offers for sale, sales, and importation, but Google does not sell, offer to sell, or import Android or Android SDK. [...] The ordinary meaning of 'sale' requires transfer of ownership for a price. [...] Android and Android SDK are offered free of charge to anyone who wishes to download them off the Internet, however, and there is no evidence that Google ever receives any consideration in return. That undisputed fact precludes a finding of contributory infringement." http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-update-summary-judgment.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-upda...

nitrogen 15y ago
That is just one element of a many-faceted approach to defending Android. It is misleading to suggest that making the observation that Google does not sell Android is equivalent to admitting that there is no better argument available. AFAIK (IANAL), you aren't usually allowed to raise new arguments later on in a trial (which bothers me), so both sides will raise every issue and argument they can think of at the beginning.

X-Istence 15y ago

Google is undercutting Microsoft, Apple, and RIM because they are releasing for free what everyone else HAS to charge for because they don't have income from advertisements to support the R&D required.