6 ms·

This is the second time Google has supported a partner who is asking absurd percentages on FRAND patents. Of all the IP litigation that is happening, why is Go

This is the second time Google has supported a partner who is asking absurd percentages on FRAND patents. Of all the IP litigation that is happening, why is Google seemingly supporting the least defensible and moral claims? Maybe Google feels that the world is indifferent about their behavior here, but outside of strong supporters of open source code I feel like Google is losing the PR war about their integrity.

ajross 14y ago
High fees are the "least" defensible? Apple just asked for and got a full-on import ban on the Galaxy Nexus... None of this serves to justify the nonsense out there. But if you're willing to look the other way when one side plays hardball, don't be shocked when their opponent hits back. Patents are a huge mess, but this is hardly a one-sided issue about "Google", and to try to make it so is plain disingenuous. (I suppose the counter argument is that Apple's patents were never termed FRAND, so that makes a technical difference. Might be so. But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. Edit: and multiple folks posted just that. Let's just say I find that argument nonsense, "FRAND" is a technical distinction, not a moral one; try explaining it to your non-industry friends for an existence proof of that.)
- kenjackson 14y ago
  The moral difference is FRAND. If these weren't I'd say that morally they could block shipment or ask such fees (there is another moral argument to be made against the patent system, but the one about FRAND is even more fundamental). Companies know that they may have to pay the piper on patents, but there's a belief that on FRAND patents they will be very reasonable rates. Google is basically saying that you can't trust us or our partners.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    It seems to me that, at worst, Google is saying you can't trust us or our partners... if you sue us. That doesn't seem at all surprising or unexpected.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  The moral difference is that they're not keeping their promise to the standard bodies which would've tried to work around the patents otherwise. Lets say a company abuses a FRAND patent related to Wifi or GPS (that it previously deemed FRAND due to which their technology was included) and demands 20% of the price, that is much worse than Slide2Unlock, since Slide2Unlock can be worked around much easier than making a new Wifi or GPS standard and shipping hundreds of millions of devices, routers, GPS chips and launching satellites again. Don't get me wrong, I hate the stupid Slide to Unlock patent as much as you, but there is certainly a moral difference between abusing a regular patent and a FRAND patent. With Nokia getting into losses, this is a worrying trend since they own so many FRAND patents. If all these cases set a bad precedent on FRAND patents, we'll be doubly screwed.
  - ajross 14y ago
    I don't see it that way at all, sorry. Both have the effect of eliminating valid competition from the market. Both are bad. Condemning one and not the other makes you, personally, part of the problem and not the solution, because you're fighting only on one side. Your utopia, apparently, has Apple squeezing everyone else from the market. You'll forgive me if I question the moral basis for your argument.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      One way might be ethically bad, but the other puts the squeeze on everyone. What Google is involved in here is unquestionalby worse than what Apple is doing (attacking one company for a perceived copy job). I think the issue is that you're an Apple hater/Android Fanboy and you're letting this clod your logic. Getting kicked in the shin by a stranger is bad, as is getting shot point blank in the belly by a sawed off shotgun. Two things being bad doesn't mean one isn't worse.
      - ajross 14y ago
        No. Just no. Google (really Samsung, but whatever -- let's leave Google as the proxy here for simplicity) isn't squeezing "everyone." They're squeezing exactly one party, who happens to have already sued them. This is a defensive move in a larger battle, and viewing it as one-sided while cheering for an at-best-equally-at-fault party is just perpetuating the absurd status quo. Either you think patents suits are bad, or you are part of the problem.
- shinratdr 14y ago
  > But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. No, it's a moral difference. The whole point of the FRAND designation is to protect organizations from lawsuits. It's not all fair game and equal. Suing someone over a regular patent is like shooting someone on your property after putting up an explicit "No Trespassing" sign. You might not agree with it or think it was fair but (in some places) the owner is protected. Suing someone over a FRAND patent is like shooting someone that comes onto your property after you put up a giant "Visitors Welcome" sign. The terms were clear & public knowledge and you went back on them. Both can still be considered awful even though more people would agree the second one is unquestionably morally wrong.
  - ajross 14y ago
    That's an absolutely ridiculous analogy, given that Apple shot first. You're point only makes sense if you're talking about unrelated cases. It's hardball. I said this elsewhere, but if you insist on taking sides here you are part of the problem.
    - CountSessine 14y ago
      Complete nonsense. Samsung and Motorola are betraying the TIA/ITU process that they participated in in good faith by citing these patents in the dispute. They're setting fire to the whole system that they themselves helped to build. Why would Qualcomm et. al. want anything to do with these clowns in the next round of 4G standardization negotiations? Bearing in mind that Qualcomm has invented more of the actually useful patents in 3GPP technologies than Samsung and Motorola put together, and that Samsung and Motorola are now claiming that Qualcomm's customers effectively don't have a license to those same 3GPP technologies? Somehow everyone agreed just how gross and mendacious this was back when Rambus stabbed everyone in JEDEC in the back. Now that Samsung and Motorola are doing it, it's ... better? Apple shot first? Give me a break.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      Your response here is beyond ridiculous. I think you should try to separate your emotions from the discussion. If Apple has a "no trespassing" sign one would expect them to shoot first. That doesn't give others who have a "visitors welcome" sign the right to shoot people on their property.
- falling 14y ago
  the difference is hypocrisy.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  Apple asked for, and the Judge agreed that Apple may indeed be irreparably harmed if an injunction on the import of the Galaxy Nexus wasn't made. This is part of how the legal system plays out. There is nothing wrong with it, morally or otherwise. What is wrong is to have your patents be a part of an now industry standard and no longer license the patents under FRAND when you have made a promise to do so. In the future how is a standards body supposed to accept your IP to be used as part of a standard when clearly you will renege on an agreement you made by contributing your IP to that standard. I sure as hell wouldn't want to use any of Samsung's IP in the next gen wireless standard for fear of Samsung reneging on its agreement to license said IP under FRAND terms.
- jsz0 14y ago
  Apple just asked for and got a full-on import ban on the Galaxy Nexus Samsung has requested injunction on Apple's products in the past too. IIRC they were all denied. Motorola requested, and was briefly granted, an injunction on Apple products in Germany also. when one side plays hardball, don't be shocked when their opponent hits back Absolutely. More power to them. That's how the game works. Nothing will change until the rules of the game change. This brings me to the whole 'X sued Y first' issue which is kind of silly too. We know when lawsuits were filed. We have no clue what happened privately or what legal considerations were made behind closed doors. The second Nokia sued Apple the race was on industry wide to start legally testing patents. The best way to do that is to sue someone. A good offense is a good defense right? Everyone is going to end up suing and eventually licensing to everyone. That's about the only way this can play out. At some point down the road, if it hasn't already happened, you're going to have Android OEMs suing other Android OEMs too. It's kind of pointless to paint anyone as good guys or bad guys. There is no option here to be a conscientious objector. Google seems to have tried that for a while until they wised up.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  How does "standards essential" sound? The point is that there is an industry standard, and the "FRAND" patents are (probably) necessary to implement the standard. There's a substantial difference between that type of patent and one for proprietary, single-vendor tech.
mythz 14y ago
No-one who shoots first is a victim in a Patent war. Apple's granted injunctions on the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Nexus in the largest market in the world will tie up more capital and do more damage than a few percentage point royalties. It is absolutely the worst time to have sales bans on your flagship product now that the iPad is infiltrating the market at this very early stage. I'm expecting litigation to go thermonuclear until a patent covenant is reached or all legal avenues to be exhausted.
- taligent 14y ago
  Apple didn't shoot first. Nokia did. And pretty sure Apple learnt there lesson after handing over the first few billion.
  - mythz 14y ago
    This is about Smart Phone mobile OS's that matter, i.e. iOS vs Android. Nokia doesn't do either.
thechut 14y ago
Everybody is saying that these are all FRAND patents but that is simply not true. Yes some of the patents in question are related to UTMS. However, Samsung also has other patent claims including: -"A method for dialing a phone number in a smart phone having both PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) and mobile phone functions"[1] - The ability to click a number and call it -"A method and device for reproducing digital audio data in a mobile station is disclosed."[2] - MP3 playback -" The system code can process an input byte stream that is representative of contents to be displayed on the touch sensitive display and can generate a content document file representative of an internal representation of the content."[3] - Seems like view panning essentially These are the exact same type of patents that Apple alleges infringement by Samsung. -"A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command." [4] - the touch screen patent -"Plug detection mechanisms can be provided for detecting when a plug of an accessory component is present within a jack of an electronic device."[5] - Headphone detection These is by no means all of them, just an example of how both sides are basically doing the same to each other. None of these patents are extraordinary features, they are the technologies we take for granted in modern smartphones. At best, these patent wars don't help anybody but the lawyers involved. At the worst, either of these companies could crush a startup using what are pretty ubiquitous technologies just because they have a loosely worded patent. It's not about one side looking worse than the other, this is an all out war and these companies will do whatever is necessary to keep their hard worked on products on the market. Perhaps Apple fans do a better job of spreading smut about who is suing who for what, so you say "Google is losing the PR war about their integrity" But really we are all losing when it comes to innovation and competition. FRAND policies are useless. It's time to reform software and hardware patents and expand fair use. edited for spacing. [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,771,980.PN.&OS=PN/6,771,980&RS=PN/6,771,980 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,879,843.PN.&OS=PN/6,879,843&RS=PN/6,879,843 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,450,114.PN.&OS=PN/7,450,114&RS=PN/7,450,114 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [4]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,479,949.PN.&OS=PN/7,479,949&RS=PN/7,479,949 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [5]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,789,697.PN.&OS=PN/7,789,697&RS=PN/7,789,697 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
Tichy 14y ago
I think this is all just lawyer bullshit and has nothing to do with Google's intentions or integrity. It is just how the public (via the government) has layed out the playing field. Companies who want to do business simply have to pay the lawyer's tax.
mayanksinghal 14y ago
Firstly, I have little to no experience in this field so all my arguments may mostly be gibberish. But, 1. Microsoft had initially asked for $15 per Android device sold [1]. For some devices, this was as much as 7%. I am not sure how related these cases are. It seems as if it is hard to find if the involved patents [2] are FRAND. 2. The definition of fair is relative. I see less absurdity in 2.25% than you do, probably because of my biases. Given that some of these patents are primary to connectivity (wireless patents), their licencing to competitors (especially when competitors have charged upto 7% on your phones) is going to be high. In fact, it seems that Apple and Microsoft have an upper hand here. 3. And yes, Apple has asked for a ban on sales based on "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system". In other threads, it was pointed out that not only was it obvious but prior art might be available. Now, I am not commenting on the validity of the patent, I am trying to see how such a feature about search interface becomes so paramount to the success of Samsung Galaxy Nexus device? And how will it cause irreparable damage to Apple, for that is what they have claimed? I don't see it at all. To me it is the least defensible argument of all. 4. Morality - it is a strange concept. Apple going all guns blazing over Android, was immoral to me. Worse was the case when Microsoft did so to much smaller OEMs. Apple is considered to be a pioneer in technology, and they have argued that Android is nothing but a copy of their designs. What it has also done is to patent the hell out of every design - moral or not (deliberately not seeing the obviousness of some of the patents also seem immoral to me). They used this against Android and they have every legal right to do so. And while they do so, they have copied some features from Android, Notification System is often given as the only example. I don't own an iPhone so I cannot comment on this. They could copy it because it was not patented. It makes it legal but not moral according to their own standards. Having double standards, is least moral to me. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-samsung-microsoft-idUSTRE7651DB20110706 [2] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html Edit: Fixed reference

ajross 14y ago

High fees are the "least" defensible? Apple just asked for and got a full-on import ban on the Galaxy Nexus... None of this serves to justify the nonsense out there. But if you're willing to look the other way when one side plays hardball, don't be shocked when their opponent hits back. Patents are a huge mess, but this is hardly a one-sided issue about "Google", and to try to make it so is plain disingenuous. (I suppose the counter argument is that Apple's patents were never termed FRAND, so that makes a technical difference. Might be so. But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. Edit: and multiple folks posted just that. Let's just say I find that argument nonsense, "FRAND" is a technical distinction, not a moral one; try explaining it to your non-industry friends for an existence proof of that.)

kenjackson 14y ago
The moral difference is FRAND. If these weren't I'd say that morally they could block shipment or ask such fees (there is another moral argument to be made against the patent system, but the one about FRAND is even more fundamental). Companies know that they may have to pay the piper on patents, but there's a belief that on FRAND patents they will be very reasonable rates. Google is basically saying that you can't trust us or our partners.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  It seems to me that, at worst, Google is saying you can't trust us or our partners... if you sue us. That doesn't seem at all surprising or unexpected.
cooldeal 14y ago
The moral difference is that they're not keeping their promise to the standard bodies which would've tried to work around the patents otherwise. Lets say a company abuses a FRAND patent related to Wifi or GPS (that it previously deemed FRAND due to which their technology was included) and demands 20% of the price, that is much worse than Slide2Unlock, since Slide2Unlock can be worked around much easier than making a new Wifi or GPS standard and shipping hundreds of millions of devices, routers, GPS chips and launching satellites again. Don't get me wrong, I hate the stupid Slide to Unlock patent as much as you, but there is certainly a moral difference between abusing a regular patent and a FRAND patent. With Nokia getting into losses, this is a worrying trend since they own so many FRAND patents. If all these cases set a bad precedent on FRAND patents, we'll be doubly screwed.
- ajross 14y ago
  I don't see it that way at all, sorry. Both have the effect of eliminating valid competition from the market. Both are bad. Condemning one and not the other makes you, personally, part of the problem and not the solution, because you're fighting only on one side. Your utopia, apparently, has Apple squeezing everyone else from the market. You'll forgive me if I question the moral basis for your argument.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    One way might be ethically bad, but the other puts the squeeze on everyone. What Google is involved in here is unquestionalby worse than what Apple is doing (attacking one company for a perceived copy job). I think the issue is that you're an Apple hater/Android Fanboy and you're letting this clod your logic. Getting kicked in the shin by a stranger is bad, as is getting shot point blank in the belly by a sawed off shotgun. Two things being bad doesn't mean one isn't worse.
    - ajross 14y ago
      No. Just no. Google (really Samsung, but whatever -- let's leave Google as the proxy here for simplicity) isn't squeezing "everyone." They're squeezing exactly one party, who happens to have already sued them. This is a defensive move in a larger battle, and viewing it as one-sided while cheering for an at-best-equally-at-fault party is just perpetuating the absurd status quo. Either you think patents suits are bad, or you are part of the problem.
shinratdr 14y ago
> But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. No, it's a moral difference. The whole point of the FRAND designation is to protect organizations from lawsuits. It's not all fair game and equal. Suing someone over a regular patent is like shooting someone on your property after putting up an explicit "No Trespassing" sign. You might not agree with it or think it was fair but (in some places) the owner is protected. Suing someone over a FRAND patent is like shooting someone that comes onto your property after you put up a giant "Visitors Welcome" sign. The terms were clear & public knowledge and you went back on them. Both can still be considered awful even though more people would agree the second one is unquestionably morally wrong.
- ajross 14y ago
  That's an absolutely ridiculous analogy, given that Apple shot first. You're point only makes sense if you're talking about unrelated cases. It's hardball. I said this elsewhere, but if you insist on taking sides here you are part of the problem.
  - CountSessine 14y ago
    Complete nonsense. Samsung and Motorola are betraying the TIA/ITU process that they participated in in good faith by citing these patents in the dispute. They're setting fire to the whole system that they themselves helped to build. Why would Qualcomm et. al. want anything to do with these clowns in the next round of 4G standardization negotiations? Bearing in mind that Qualcomm has invented more of the actually useful patents in 3GPP technologies than Samsung and Motorola put together, and that Samsung and Motorola are now claiming that Qualcomm's customers effectively don't have a license to those same 3GPP technologies? Somehow everyone agreed just how gross and mendacious this was back when Rambus stabbed everyone in JEDEC in the back. Now that Samsung and Motorola are doing it, it's ... better? Apple shot first? Give me a break.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Your response here is beyond ridiculous. I think you should try to separate your emotions from the discussion. If Apple has a "no trespassing" sign one would expect them to shoot first. That doesn't give others who have a "visitors welcome" sign the right to shoot people on their property.
falling 14y ago
the difference is hypocrisy.
X-Istence 14y ago
Apple asked for, and the Judge agreed that Apple may indeed be irreparably harmed if an injunction on the import of the Galaxy Nexus wasn't made. This is part of how the legal system plays out. There is nothing wrong with it, morally or otherwise. What is wrong is to have your patents be a part of an now industry standard and no longer license the patents under FRAND when you have made a promise to do so. In the future how is a standards body supposed to accept your IP to be used as part of a standard when clearly you will renege on an agreement you made by contributing your IP to that standard. I sure as hell wouldn't want to use any of Samsung's IP in the next gen wireless standard for fear of Samsung reneging on its agreement to license said IP under FRAND terms.
jsz0 14y ago
Apple just asked for and got a full-on import ban on the Galaxy Nexus Samsung has requested injunction on Apple's products in the past too. IIRC they were all denied. Motorola requested, and was briefly granted, an injunction on Apple products in Germany also. when one side plays hardball, don't be shocked when their opponent hits back Absolutely. More power to them. That's how the game works. Nothing will change until the rules of the game change. This brings me to the whole 'X sued Y first' issue which is kind of silly too. We know when lawsuits were filed. We have no clue what happened privately or what legal considerations were made behind closed doors. The second Nokia sued Apple the race was on industry wide to start legally testing patents. The best way to do that is to sue someone. A good offense is a good defense right? Everyone is going to end up suing and eventually licensing to everyone. That's about the only way this can play out. At some point down the road, if it hasn't already happened, you're going to have Android OEMs suing other Android OEMs too. It's kind of pointless to paint anyone as good guys or bad guys. There is no option here to be a conscientious objector. Google seems to have tried that for a while until they wised up.
MaysonL 14y ago
How does "standards essential" sound? The point is that there is an industry standard, and the "FRAND" patents are (probably) necessary to implement the standard. There's a substantial difference between that type of patent and one for proprietary, single-vendor tech.

mythz 14y ago

No-one who shoots first is a victim in a Patent war. Apple's granted injunctions on the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Nexus in the largest market in the world will tie up more capital and do more damage than a few percentage point royalties. It is absolutely the worst time to have sales bans on your flagship product now that the iPad is infiltrating the market at this very early stage. I'm expecting litigation to go thermonuclear until a patent covenant is reached or all legal avenues to be exhausted.

taligent 14y ago
Apple didn't shoot first. Nokia did. And pretty sure Apple learnt there lesson after handing over the first few billion.
- mythz 14y ago
  This is about Smart Phone mobile OS's that matter, i.e. iOS vs Android. Nokia doesn't do either.

thechut 14y ago

Everybody is saying that these are all FRAND patents but that is simply not true. Yes some of the patents in question are related to UTMS. However, Samsung also has other patent claims including: -"A method for dialing a phone number in a smart phone having both PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) and mobile phone functions"[1] - The ability to click a number and call it -"A method and device for reproducing digital audio data in a mobile station is disclosed."[2] - MP3 playback -" The system code can process an input byte stream that is representative of contents to be displayed on the touch sensitive display and can generate a content document file representative of an internal representation of the content."[3] - Seems like view panning essentially These are the exact same type of patents that Apple alleges infringement by Samsung. -"A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command." [4] - the touch screen patent -"Plug detection mechanisms can be provided for detecting when a plug of an accessory component is present within a jack of an electronic device."[5] - Headphone detection These is by no means all of them, just an example of how both sides are basically doing the same to each other. None of these patents are extraordinary features, they are the technologies we take for granted in modern smartphones. At best, these patent wars don't help anybody but the lawyers involved. At the worst, either of these companies could crush a startup using what are pretty ubiquitous technologies just because they have a loosely worded patent. It's not about one side looking worse than the other, this is an all out war and these companies will do whatever is necessary to keep their hard worked on products on the market. Perhaps Apple fans do a better job of spreading smut about who is suing who for what, so you say "Google is losing the PR war about their integrity" But really we are all losing when it comes to innovation and competition. FRAND policies are useless. It's time to reform software and hardware patents and expand fair use. edited for spacing. [1]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,771,980.PN.&OS=PN/6,771,980&RS=PN/6,771,980 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [2]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,879,843.PN.&OS=PN/6,879,843&RS=PN/6,879,843 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [3]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,450,114.PN.&OS=PN/7,450,114&RS=PN/7,450,114 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [4]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,479,949.PN.&OS=PN/7,479,949&RS=PN/7,479,949 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... [5]: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,789,697.PN.&OS=PN/7,789,697&RS=PN/7,789,697 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

Tichy 14y ago

I think this is all just lawyer bullshit and has nothing to do with Google's intentions or integrity. It is just how the public (via the government) has layed out the playing field. Companies who want to do business simply have to pay the lawyer's tax.

mayanksinghal 14y ago

Firstly, I have little to no experience in this field so all my arguments may mostly be gibberish. But, 1. Microsoft had initially asked for $15 per Android device sold [1]. For some devices, this was as much as 7%. I am not sure how related these cases are. It seems as if it is hard to find if the involved patents [2] are FRAND. 2. The definition of fair is relative. I see less absurdity in 2.25% than you do, probably because of my biases. Given that some of these patents are primary to connectivity (wireless patents), their licencing to competitors (especially when competitors have charged upto 7% on your phones) is going to be high. In fact, it seems that Apple and Microsoft have an upper hand here. 3. And yes, Apple has asked for a ban on sales based on "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system". In other threads, it was pointed out that not only was it obvious but prior art might be available. Now, I am not commenting on the validity of the patent, I am trying to see how such a feature about search interface becomes so paramount to the success of Samsung Galaxy Nexus device? And how will it cause irreparable damage to Apple, for that is what they have claimed? I don't see it at all. To me it is the least defensible argument of all. 4. Morality - it is a strange concept. Apple going all guns blazing over Android, was immoral to me. Worse was the case when Microsoft did so to much smaller OEMs. Apple is considered to be a pioneer in technology, and they have argued that Android is nothing but a copy of their designs. What it has also done is to patent the hell out of every design - moral or not (deliberately not seeing the obviousness of some of the patents also seem immoral to me). They used this against Android and they have every legal right to do so. And while they do so, they have copied some features from Android, Notification System is often given as the only example. I don't own an iPhone so I cannot comment on this. They could copy it because it was not patented. It makes it legal but not moral according to their own standards. Having double standards, is least moral to me. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-samsung-microsoft-idUSTRE7651DB20110706 [2] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html Edit: Fixed reference