Slashdot Mirror

Florian Mueller predicts the (German) auto companies will become patent trolls, as the tech industry takes over autonomous car design:
http://www.fosspatents.com/201...

Are we going to see a convergence, where tech companies and auto companies team up, or a divergence, where tech companies produce the new vehicles and legacy car companies shrink into irrelevance?

The only thing I can predict with great confidence is that the cost for a replacement CPU board for a Tesla will be A Lot More than the cost of the constituent parts. (Nissan charged me $1500 for a truck wiring harness after mice chewed the insulation. It's really hard to believe that almost 6% of the cost of that truck was in the wiring harness.)

1. Qualcomm has monopoly on mobile patents.

2. Qualcomm chips has backdoors baked in.

On what basis are trademarks more acceptable than design patents?

If you look at the full complaint, it's not just about the slider, it's a comprehensive look-and-feel lawsuit where it's clearly been copied: https://www.eff.org/files/2015...

What's more, the lawsuit appears to be in retaliation for a much more dangerous utility patent telling Microsoft they can't include a live preview in their office products:
http://www.fosspatents.com/201...

I would not include software design patents in a blog covering software utility patents. There's just no comparison. By *definition*, a design patent covers things that don't objectively matter, and therefore they just aren't the same sort of problem. You can get stupid shit like suing over rounded edges of a cellphone in Samsung v. Apple, but it's ridiculous with software when it's a matter of moments to change all future copies, and patch any existing copies (that are receiving updates), to slightly alter the design to not infringe without in any way adjusting the functionality or the backing code.

What's interesting is that the USPTO invalidated Apple's main design patent in this case. But hardly any of the mainstream media reported it.

It's your fault, not mine, that you've been exposed here in this discussion as someone who is not just emotional but also very unreasonable. And it's easy for the world to see that you said something that was baseless and then tried to justify it with a totally baseless theory.

1) In response to my first mesage to you here, you wrote: "You also made yourself a paid voice that was often hostile to Free Software, all the way back to the SCO issue." I repeat the last part: "all the way back to the SCO issue".

2) I then pointed out that I never ever, not even privately, expressed an opinion on any of the issues in the SCO case because I never cared enough about it to take a close look.

3) You then mentioned the IBM patent threats against an open-source mainframe emulator, which I first blogged about on April 6, 2010 and claimed the following: "It was a way to lend credence to IBM [which you then corrected to mean SCO] and MS arguments during the SCO issue. To state otherwise is deceptive, perhaps even self-deceptive." However, according to Wikipedia, "[t]he SCO Group allege[d] that its license agreements with IBM means that source code that IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights." This has nothing at all to do with IBM theatening an open-source project with patents. On that Wikipedia page the only kinds of rights that are mentioned are copyrights and contractual rights, and it says: "SCO has not claimed patent infringement"

So Instead of just admitting that you accused me of a connection (SCO) that never existed because I never said anything about that case, you're now actually saying that someone drawing attention to an open source PATENT issue in April 2010 was trying to lend credence to DIFFERENT parties' arguments in a COPYRIGHT and CONTRACT case in which no patent was ever at issue. That's already bizarre, but it's even worse in chronological terms. According to Wikipedia, summary judgment had issued against SCO in 2007 (which suggests the judge didn't believe SCO had any reasonable point), the appeals court (in 2009) had reversed in part and remanded for a trial, and "[o]n March 30, 2010, following a jury trial, Novell, and not The SCO Group, was unanimously found to be the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights." That was exactly a week before I first blogged about the IBM mainframe patent issue. So apart from a patent issue being factually unrelated to a copyright/contract issue, it would also have been to late.

Why don't you just admit now that you were wrong about me and SCO? Everyone who reads this exchange of arguments here can say that I'm right. If you at least conceded that you made a mistake, you could minimize the damage to your credibility.

Bruce, now that the discussion here has finally subsided, I want to comment on your involvement in this and I thought it was the right thing to do it here in public.

Maybe I should thank you for having discouraged people from asking questions because it saved me valuable time I got to spend on my app (I've just hired three full-time programmers and am currently interviewing others, so this project does need attention). No one paid me for this or encouraged me to this, nor do I have any reason to assume that anyone will be more likely to do business with me going forward because of this (it's actually unlikely because the people who matter to me professionally don't spend time on discussion boards of any kind). It was just that a /. guy who edited a /. op-ed of mine 10 years ago invited me to talk about Microsoft's billion-dollar Android licensing business and I didn't want to turn them down. I knew I was going to face a reasonably hostile audience and reminded /. of it.

Now, I can certainly understand that you're disappointed or, to make it sound more dramatic, feel betrayed by me. I haven't forgotten that you supported my efforts against software patents in various ways, and on my way to my computer I walked past that CNET Networks UK award for Outstanding Contribution to Software Development, which the FFII and my campaign jointly won because you, as a member of the CNET UK awards jury at the time, supported our cause and liked our work. That was in 2005, and then, in 2011, when I disclosed a then-already-ongoing working relationship with Microsoft on my blog (voluntarily; before any judge or anyone else with the authority to require me to do it asked about it), at a time when I was talking a lot about Android IP issues (patents as well as copyright) and the (limited, partial) compatibility of open sources licenses with FRAND licensing for open standards, Red Hat's dealings with patent trolls etc., you--who preferred to be dismissed by HP rather than stop criticizing Microsoft, which shows how principled you are and I admire you for it--considered me a traitor. A sellout. There's nothing difficult about it to understand. (And to make things even worse from your point of view, I'll confess to having filed for patents, PCT and immediate parallel filings in the U.S., on three inventions this year.

But this disappointment over a perceived betrayal doesn't change anything about three very important facts:

1) In reversely chronological order, let me draw your attention to the fact that I have throughout those years and especially this year done some hard and effective work on things we very likely agree on. In March, I brought to light, ahead of a key Apple v. Samsung (and Google, which paid part of Samsung's legal defense) trial, the irrationality of Apple's damages claim over 5 patents. There was no Groklaw or anyone else around to do that job. I did it. The following month I urged Apple and Microsoft not to act against software developer interests through their latest pro-patent lobby group. And this month I published an analysis of 222 smartphone patent assertions by Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and Samsung, less than 10% of which had merit based on final or latest preliminary results. None of all the people who criticized software patents and other issues with patents ever showed up at the countless (!) smartphone patent trials I attended. None of them ever made any effort to draw attention to what was happening there and to the political conclusions that could be drawn from the game that was being played, though the "smartphone patent wars" would have been a splendid opportunity to highlight certain issues to policy makers (for example, most of the asserted patents

Bruce, now that the discussion here has finally subsided, I want to comment on your involvement in this and I thought it was the right thing to do it here in public.

Maybe I should thank you for having discouraged people from asking questions because it saved me valuable time I got to spend on my app (I've just hired three full-time programmers and am currently interviewing others, so this project does need attention). No one paid me for this or encouraged me to this, nor do I have any reason to assume that anyone will be more likely to do business with me going forward because of this (it's actually unlikely because the people who matter to me professionally don't spend time on discussion boards of any kind). It was just that a /. guy who edited a /. op-ed of mine 10 years ago invited me to talk about Microsoft's billion-dollar Android licensing business and I didn't want to turn them down. I knew I was going to face a reasonably hostile audience and reminded /. of it.

Now, I can certainly understand that you're disappointed or, to make it sound more dramatic, feel betrayed by me. I haven't forgotten that you supported my efforts against software patents in various ways, and on my way to my computer I walked past that CNET Networks UK award for Outstanding Contribution to Software Development, which the FFII and my campaign jointly won because you, as a member of the CNET UK awards jury at the time, supported our cause and liked our work. That was in 2005, and then, in 2011, when I disclosed a then-already-ongoing working relationship with Microsoft on my blog (voluntarily; before any judge or anyone else with the authority to require me to do it asked about it), at a time when I was talking a lot about Android IP issues (patents as well as copyright) and the (limited, partial) compatibility of open sources licenses with FRAND licensing for open standards, Red Hat's dealings with patent trolls etc., you--who preferred to be dismissed by HP rather than stop criticizing Microsoft, which shows how principled you are and I admire you for it--considered me a traitor. A sellout. There's nothing difficult about it to understand. (And to make things even worse from your point of view, I'll confess to having filed for patents, PCT and immediate parallel filings in the U.S., on three inventions this year.

But this disappointment over a perceived betrayal doesn't change anything about three very important facts:

1) In reversely chronological order, let me draw your attention to the fact that I have throughout those years and especially this year done some hard and effective work on things we very likely agree on. In March, I brought to light, ahead of a key Apple v. Samsung (and Google, which paid part of Samsung's legal defense) trial, the irrationality of Apple's damages claim over 5 patents. There was no Groklaw or anyone else around to do that job. I did it. The following month I urged Apple and Microsoft not to act against software developer interests through their latest pro-patent lobby group. And this month I published an analysis of 222 smartphone patent assertions by Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and Samsung, less than 10% of which had merit based on final or latest preliminary results. None of all the people who criticized software patents and other issues with patents ever showed up at the countless (!) smartphone patent trials I attended. None of them ever made any effort to draw attention to what was happening there and to the political conclusions that could be drawn from the game that was being played, though the "smartphone patent wars" would have been a splendid opportunity to highlight certain issues to policy makers (for example, most of the asserted patents

Bruce, now that the discussion here has finally subsided, I want to comment on your involvement in this and I thought it was the right thing to do it here in public.

Maybe I should thank you for having discouraged people from asking questions because it saved me valuable time I got to spend on my app (I've just hired three full-time programmers and am currently interviewing others, so this project does need attention). No one paid me for this or encouraged me to this, nor do I have any reason to assume that anyone will be more likely to do business with me going forward because of this (it's actually unlikely because the people who matter to me professionally don't spend time on discussion boards of any kind). It was just that a /. guy who edited a /. op-ed of mine 10 years ago invited me to talk about Microsoft's billion-dollar Android licensing business and I didn't want to turn them down. I knew I was going to face a reasonably hostile audience and reminded /. of it.

Now, I can certainly understand that you're disappointed or, to make it sound more dramatic, feel betrayed by me. I haven't forgotten that you supported my efforts against software patents in various ways, and on my way to my computer I walked past that CNET Networks UK award for Outstanding Contribution to Software Development, which the FFII and my campaign jointly won because you, as a member of the CNET UK awards jury at the time, supported our cause and liked our work. That was in 2005, and then, in 2011, when I disclosed a then-already-ongoing working relationship with Microsoft on my blog (voluntarily; before any judge or anyone else with the authority to require me to do it asked about it), at a time when I was talking a lot about Android IP issues (patents as well as copyright) and the (limited, partial) compatibility of open sources licenses with FRAND licensing for open standards, Red Hat's dealings with patent trolls etc., you--who preferred to be dismissed by HP rather than stop criticizing Microsoft, which shows how principled you are and I admire you for it--considered me a traitor. A sellout. There's nothing difficult about it to understand. (And to make things even worse from your point of view, I'll confess to having filed for patents, PCT and immediate parallel filings in the U.S., on three inventions this year.

But this disappointment over a perceived betrayal doesn't change anything about three very important facts:

1) In reversely chronological order, let me draw your attention to the fact that I have throughout those years and especially this year done some hard and effective work on things we very likely agree on. In March, I brought to light, ahead of a key Apple v. Samsung (and Google, which paid part of Samsung's legal defense) trial, the irrationality of Apple's damages claim over 5 patents. There was no Groklaw or anyone else around to do that job. I did it. The following month I urged Apple and Microsoft not to act against software developer interests through their latest pro-patent lobby group. And this month I published an analysis of 222 smartphone patent assertions by Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and Samsung, less than 10% of which had merit based on final or latest preliminary results. None of all the people who criticized software patents and other issues with patents ever showed up at the countless (!) smartphone patent trials I attended. None of them ever made any effort to draw attention to what was happening there and to the political conclusions that could be drawn from the game that was being played, though the "smartphone patent wars" would have been a splendid opportunity to highlight certain issues to policy makers (for example, most of the asserted patents

I've answered the disclosure question elsewhere in this discussion. As for "anti-open source pro-patent scaremongering" please check out this analysis of 222 smartphone patent assertions (most them against Android), less than 10% of which had merit.

How many times have you contacted news and commentary organisations to correct their description of you as a patent lawyer? How often have they made the correction?

While I track lawsuits in detail, I never kept a log that would enable me to provide a list of events as an answer to this question. If I had to testify to this under oath in court, I would be able to say that I have done this repeatedly, that corrections were made repeatedly, and that to the best of my recollection, I have contacted every news agency or publisher when I was inaccurately described as a patent attorney.

The fact that I'm not a patent attorney has certainly not prevented IP professionals and academics from finding me a useful source of news, facts, and commentary.

Why spend 3 to 4 years studying computer science just to realise at the end, that everything patentable in software has been patented (from the truly stupid, trivial to non-trivial ideas) and big firms holding the patents have been and are doing so for decades and decades!! For innovation's sake and to tell university student that they have a future in this sector, isn't it time to shorten the life of software patents or ban them all together?

Ten years ago I took the NoSoftwarePatents position. In recent years, however, I've been watching major patent disputes play out in court, and less than 10% of the assertions I watched had merit. On the one hand, this high rate of failure suggests to me that there is a fundamental problem with the system. On the other hand, it appears that bad patents can still be defeated, though it's probably harder with jury trials in the U.S. than with professional judges.

I won't dispute that "large chunks of the F/OSS community", as you put it, have taken issue with my work in recent years. However, this was just because I honestly and accurately highlighted inconvenient truths. For example, the fact that more than two dozen Android device makers pay Microsoft patent royalties on a piece of supposedly "free" software, and that others pay Microsoft patent royalties on their use of non-mobile Linux, is a fact regardless of whether "large chunks of the F/OSS community" like it. As I've said on Twitter, those billions of dollars of Android patent royalties that have been and continued to be paid show that Android isn't "free," though litigation results suggest that Android could have been free if every device maker had done what Motorola has been and continues to be doing: to simply defeat the infringement assertions in court and to work around the few that will ultimately be found to have merit.

My track record in predicting decisions is extremely good, and IP professionals and researchers the world over recognize it regardless of what parts of the F/OSS community think. With the greatest respect for the F/OSS community, I wouldn't want it to be the other way round. And to be perfectly forthright, to me those who think PJ ever proved me wrong on anything are pathetically clueless, unbelievably naive, totally brainwashed, or a combination of all of the foregoing. On the single most important issue, API copyrightability (which relates to Oracle v. Google as well as the Linux-kernel-headers-in-Android issue), the appeals court said exactly what I had been saying for years, and the opposite of what PJ and her brainwashed followers believed. (I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court won't put Google back on the winning track with respect to copyrightability.)

He was never a valuable source for anything [...]

You're entitled to your opinion on this, but it is not shared by some very credible people in the intellectual property universe:

- Managing Intellectual Property (ManagingIP) magazine has put me on its annual list of the top 50 most influential people in IP five times so far (2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2014).

- IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) magazine named me one of the IP personalities of 2011 (and had me on some other ranking that I can't find at the moment).

- Canadian IP lawyer Barry Sookman conducted some research on the leading IP and tech law blogs. According to his analysis (published in early 2013), my FOSS Patents blog was the #3 U.S. patent law blog at the time.

- I have received invitations to speak at conferences organized by universities and around the globe (in the U.S., literally from California to New York) and at commercial conferences in the U.S., different European countries, different Asian countries, and New Zealand. Only for logistical reasons I have had to politely decline except for invitations in my home region. I have spoken at the renowned Max Planck Institute for IP and Competition Law in Munich, at the Munich University of Technology (three times already), and the University of Bayreuth, where I shared a panel with a judge from the patent-specialized division of Germany's equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court (see page 2 of the conference program), who is also widely expected to become one of the top-ranking judges of Europe's future Unified Patent Court. This incredibly well-respected patent judge and I both addressed the same topic, from our different vantage points, and had a panel discussion with questions from the audience and our moderator, a Switzerland-based patent law professor.

- Professor Thomas Cotter (University of Minnesota), an expert in comparative patent remedies (he travels the world to research differences between national patent laws), wrote this post about the significance of FOSS Patents earlier this year. Professor Cotter's independence is underscored by the fact that he has in recent years signed amicus curiae briefs supporting a core Apple position (on FRAND) and opposing a core Apple position (on design patent remedies).

- I could give more examples, but suffice it to say that any of the above references easily outweighs whatever a blog like Groklaw may have written about me over the years.

He was never a valuable source for anything [...]

You're entitled to your opinion on this, but it is not shared by some very credible people in the intellectual property universe:

- Managing Intellectual Property (ManagingIP) magazine has put me on its annual list of the top 50 most influential people in IP five times so far (2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2014).

- IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) magazine named me one of the IP personalities of 2011 (and had me on some other ranking that I can't find at the moment).

- Canadian IP lawyer Barry Sookman conducted some research on the leading IP and tech law blogs. According to his analysis (published in early 2013), my FOSS Patents blog was the #3 U.S. patent law blog at the time.

- I have received invitations to speak at conferences organized by universities and around the globe (in the U.S., literally from California to New York) and at commercial conferences in the U.S., different European countries, different Asian countries, and New Zealand. Only for logistical reasons I have had to politely decline except for invitations in my home region. I have spoken at the renowned Max Planck Institute for IP and Competition Law in Munich, at the Munich University of Technology (three times already), and the University of Bayreuth, where I shared a panel with a judge from the patent-specialized division of Germany's equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court (see page 2 of the conference program), who is also widely expected to become one of the top-ranking judges of Europe's future Unified Patent Court. This incredibly well-respected patent judge and I both addressed the same topic, from our different vantage points, and had a panel discussion with questions from the audience and our moderator, a Switzerland-based patent law professor.

- Professor Thomas Cotter (University of Minnesota), an expert in comparative patent remedies (he travels the world to research differences between national patent laws), wrote this post about the significance of FOSS Patents earlier this year. Professor Cotter's independence is underscored by the fact that he has in recent years signed amicus curiae briefs supporting a core Apple position (on FRAND) and opposing a core Apple position (on design patent remedies).

- I could give more examples, but suffice it to say that any of the above references easily outweighs whatever a blog like Groklaw may have written about me over the years.

Add Google the the list

I've become accustomed to an ever-growing list of companies someone somewhere thinks I'm beholden to. Years ago there was speculation in the Groklaw discussion forum about Apple paying me and earlier this year an Apple blog referred to speculation elsewhere on the Internet (and supposedly at Apple HQ in Cupertino) about an affiliation with the Android camp. I've addressed the disclosure question in this part of the discussion. I take it as a great compliment that opposing camps (Apple fans on the one hand, Android/open source fans on the other hand) simultaneously allege a conflict of interest.

I know that I only write what I believe in. There was a time when Apple and Microsoft had scored a number of (temporary) wins in court against Android, but then came a time when most of those wins eroded (patents got invalidated etc.) and when whatever little was left turned out not to be forceful, so I had to adjust my position because anything less would have been unreasonable. At the beginning of this month I published my analysis of what happened to 222 smartphone patent assertions (most of them against Android) by Apple, Microsoft and three other major litigants, with less than 10% having proved to have merit. The facts speak for themselves.

The most absurd thing is, however, that people still say Groklaw proved me wrong on the Oracle case when the current state of affairs is that the appeals court threw out Judge Alsup's grossly erroneous non-copyrightability ruling for reasons my blog had already explained years ago. Even my toughest critics would have to acknowledge that I was right (and they and Groklaw were wrong) if only they had a scintilla of rationality.

See other posts about links to many groklaw.net posts which are about why they think you are wrong. There are many posts dealing with you... E.g. http://www.groklaw.net/article... [groklaw.net]

While Groklaw mentioned me many times, I'd need to see a list of cases in which Groklaw made a prediction that turned out true and I made one on the same issue that didn't. The one you linked to is from the spring of 2010 and it's about the IBM mainframe antitrust matter. Stuff like that is obviously not decided by an online community (or the open source community). The way to look at complaints about allegedly anticompetitive behavior is not binary. It's a question of whether someone had a reasonable basis for being concerned. In this case, the basis was clearly reasonable given that the European Commission opened formal investigations (a few months later) and IBM ultimately made commitments (the following year).

Also maybe Oracle can win that API copyrightability dispute, but that is because the Judges have no clue (except Alsup) (Cooperations are people and such, yeah right).

Judge Alsup's non-copyrightability ruling was flawed even from a purely technical point of view (for example, the way he conflated the Java language and the APIs). I know that a lot of people here (and on Groklaw, for that matter) liked the outcome (sort of like 'the end justifies the means') but I doubt that they even cared to read the decision from a critical perspective. There was an unjustified apotheosis on the Internet after his decision (an apotheosis that the judge himself presumably didn't even want to happen). Then the Federal Circuit, which enjoys a great reputation around the world for its IP expertise, determined that he had confused even basic principles of copyright law (for example, by importing fair use considerations into the copyrightability analysis). Those who hated that outcome concluded, like the post I just quoted, that the Fed. Cir. must have gotten it all wrong. Again, they substituted their belief as to the proper outcome for an analysis of the actual reasoning. Just like I thing people missed the weak aspects (even in purely technical regards) of Judge Alsup's ruling, the same crowd missed the strong ones of the Fed. Cir. opinion. I recommend to those who disagree with the Fed. Cir. to read the actual opinion, including the footnotes (some of the best stuff is found in them). The Fed. Cir.'s description of the Java language-API relationship makes a whole lot more sense than what the district judge wrote.

That still does not change that you talked about billion dollars, and come on, even if they lose you don't really believe it will be in this order of magnitude finally, are you?

To answer your question (before explaining why the first part is based on a misunderstanding), my refresher Q&A on this case says in its headline that while there was a billion-dollar damages claim, this case is about something more strategic. The commercial value of what's at stake far exceeds a billion dollars, and the key to the kingdom for Oracle is to prevail on the merits and obtain an injunction, not for the sake of harming Android but for the purpose of bringing Android back into the Java fold (as Oracle's lawyers described it in a court filing).

The fact that Oracle brought a billion-dollar damages claim came to light in mid-June 2011. I merelyquoted from a court filing and explained that this was the (financial) risk (of course, as always provided that the plaintiff p

See other posts about links to many groklaw.net posts which are about why they think you are wrong. There are many posts dealing with you... E.g. http://www.groklaw.net/article... [groklaw.net]

While Groklaw mentioned me many times, I'd need to see a list of cases in which Groklaw made a prediction that turned out true and I made one on the same issue that didn't. The one you linked to is from the spring of 2010 and it's about the IBM mainframe antitrust matter. Stuff like that is obviously not decided by an online community (or the open source community). The way to look at complaints about allegedly anticompetitive behavior is not binary. It's a question of whether someone had a reasonable basis for being concerned. In this case, the basis was clearly reasonable given that the European Commission opened formal investigations (a few months later) and IBM ultimately made commitments (the following year).

Also maybe Oracle can win that API copyrightability dispute, but that is because the Judges have no clue (except Alsup) (Cooperations are people and such, yeah right).

Judge Alsup's non-copyrightability ruling was flawed even from a purely technical point of view (for example, the way he conflated the Java language and the APIs). I know that a lot of people here (and on Groklaw, for that matter) liked the outcome (sort of like 'the end justifies the means') but I doubt that they even cared to read the decision from a critical perspective. There was an unjustified apotheosis on the Internet after his decision (an apotheosis that the judge himself presumably didn't even want to happen). Then the Federal Circuit, which enjoys a great reputation around the world for its IP expertise, determined that he had confused even basic principles of copyright law (for example, by importing fair use considerations into the copyrightability analysis). Those who hated that outcome concluded, like the post I just quoted, that the Fed. Cir. must have gotten it all wrong. Again, they substituted their belief as to the proper outcome for an analysis of the actual reasoning. Just like I thing people missed the weak aspects (even in purely technical regards) of Judge Alsup's ruling, the same crowd missed the strong ones of the Fed. Cir. opinion. I recommend to those who disagree with the Fed. Cir. to read the actual opinion, including the footnotes (some of the best stuff is found in them). The Fed. Cir.'s description of the Java language-API relationship makes a whole lot more sense than what the district judge wrote.

That still does not change that you talked about billion dollars, and come on, even if they lose you don't really believe it will be in this order of magnitude finally, are you?

To answer your question (before explaining why the first part is based on a misunderstanding), my refresher Q&A on this case says in its headline that while there was a billion-dollar damages claim, this case is about something more strategic. The commercial value of what's at stake far exceeds a billion dollars, and the key to the kingdom for Oracle is to prevail on the merits and obtain an injunction, not for the sake of harming Android but for the purpose of bringing Android back into the Java fold (as Oracle's lawyers described it in a court filing).

The fact that Oracle brought a billion-dollar damages claim came to light in mid-June 2011. I merelyquoted from a court filing and explained that this was the (financial) risk (of course, as always provided that the plaintiff p

See other posts about links to many groklaw.net posts which are about why they think you are wrong. There are many posts dealing with you... E.g. http://www.groklaw.net/article... [groklaw.net]

While Groklaw mentioned me many times, I'd need to see a list of cases in which Groklaw made a prediction that turned out true and I made one on the same issue that didn't. The one you linked to is from the spring of 2010 and it's about the IBM mainframe antitrust matter. Stuff like that is obviously not decided by an online community (or the open source community). The way to look at complaints about allegedly anticompetitive behavior is not binary. It's a question of whether someone had a reasonable basis for being concerned. In this case, the basis was clearly reasonable given that the European Commission opened formal investigations (a few months later) and IBM ultimately made commitments (the following year).

Also maybe Oracle can win that API copyrightability dispute, but that is because the Judges have no clue (except Alsup) (Cooperations are people and such, yeah right).

Judge Alsup's non-copyrightability ruling was flawed even from a purely technical point of view (for example, the way he conflated the Java language and the APIs). I know that a lot of people here (and on Groklaw, for that matter) liked the outcome (sort of like 'the end justifies the means') but I doubt that they even cared to read the decision from a critical perspective. There was an unjustified apotheosis on the Internet after his decision (an apotheosis that the judge himself presumably didn't even want to happen). Then the Federal Circuit, which enjoys a great reputation around the world for its IP expertise, determined that he had confused even basic principles of copyright law (for example, by importing fair use considerations into the copyrightability analysis). Those who hated that outcome concluded, like the post I just quoted, that the Fed. Cir. must have gotten it all wrong. Again, they substituted their belief as to the proper outcome for an analysis of the actual reasoning. Just like I thing people missed the weak aspects (even in purely technical regards) of Judge Alsup's ruling, the same crowd missed the strong ones of the Fed. Cir. opinion. I recommend to those who disagree with the Fed. Cir. to read the actual opinion, including the footnotes (some of the best stuff is found in them). The Fed. Cir.'s description of the Java language-API relationship makes a whole lot more sense than what the district judge wrote.

That still does not change that you talked about billion dollars, and come on, even if they lose you don't really believe it will be in this order of magnitude finally, are you?

To answer your question (before explaining why the first part is based on a misunderstanding), my refresher Q&A on this case says in its headline that while there was a billion-dollar damages claim, this case is about something more strategic. The commercial value of what's at stake far exceeds a billion dollars, and the key to the kingdom for Oracle is to prevail on the merits and obtain an injunction, not for the sake of harming Android but for the purpose of bringing Android back into the Java fold (as Oracle's lawyers described it in a court filing).

The fact that Oracle brought a billion-dollar damages claim came to light in mid-June 2011. I merelyquoted from a court filing and explained that this was the (financial) risk (of course, as always provided that the plaintiff p

You may or may not be surprised, but despite various disagreements over the years I'd have liked Groklaw to continue or, after its 2013 shutdown, to have come back. For example, I think Groklaw could have made some useful contributions to the public debate over this year's Apple v. Samsung trial in the Northern District of California. Also, I do regret some of my derogatory comments about PJ, including that I wondered at some point whether there was more than one person behind the PJ name. Earlier this year I met a highly trustworthy source (a corporate executive) who confirmed PJ's participation in a certain (patent-related) meeting years ago.

The part I don't understand is how Groklaws "predictions were mostly more accurate than [mine]" or "[my] opinion was painted as clearly wrong there." With respect to approximately 98% of the IP lawsuits I covered, Groklaw never made any prediction whatsoever (for example, you won't find any Groklaw prediction concerning German smartphone patent disputes, and very few relating to U.S. smartphone patent cases). The overlap essentially came down to API copyright matters: the use of Linux kernel headers in Android and the API copyright part of Oracle v. Google. While Groklaw's position on API copyright was shared by one district judge in California, my opinion was unanimously validated by three circuit (i.e., higher-level) judges in Washington DC this year. Now Google is trying to take that case to the Supreme Court. Any conspiracy theory concerning the opinions I had expressed about API copyrightability in general and the API copyright part of Oracle v. Google in particular makes no sense unless someone is crazy enough to believe that those Federal Circuit judges are part of the conspiracy.

This is my first reply here because I can easily clarify the question of why, when and how disclosures were made and address some misconceptions.

The "court order" mentioned above came down in August 2012, see e.g. http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-to-oracle-google-did-you-pay-off-bloggers/, approximately four months after a voluntary, proactive disclosure I had made in April 2012, see http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-v-google-trial-evidence-of.html#oracledisclosure. Oracle attached that previous disclosure to its response to the court order:

Oracle has retained Florian Mueller, author of the blog FOSS Patents, www.fosspatents.com, as a consultant on competition-related matters, especially relating to standards-essential patents. Oracle notes that Mr. Mueller fully disclosed his relationship with Oracle in a blog posting dated April 18, 2012; that Oracle retained him after he had begun writing about this case; and that he was not retained to write about the case. Mr. Mueller is a frequent critic of Oracle and was a leading advocate against Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc., which led to Oracle's ownership of Sun's Java IP portfolio. A copy of Mr. Mueller's disclosure is attached as Exhibit A at 5.

I disclosed consulting work for Microsoft in October 2011, see http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html. At that point, no judge had asked for a disclosure, nor has this happened to date. I did it because it was the right thing to do.

At the end of last month I shut down my consulting firm in order to focus on my (Android and iOS) app development project. I'm still blogging, but less than before.

My consulting business had served numerous clients, not just Microsoft and Oracle. There were dozens of investment banks and funds who paid me to answer questions or participate in conference calls. I also did research for a couple of law firms and a German car manufacturer (that company allows me to refer to them like this but not to disclose the name, just industry and country).

I wish all others commenting on these types of issues were equally transparent.

This is my first reply here because I can easily clarify the question of why, when and how disclosures were made and address some misconceptions.

The "court order" mentioned above came down in August 2012, see e.g. http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-to-oracle-google-did-you-pay-off-bloggers/, approximately four months after a voluntary, proactive disclosure I had made in April 2012, see http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-v-google-trial-evidence-of.html#oracledisclosure. Oracle attached that previous disclosure to its response to the court order:

Oracle has retained Florian Mueller, author of the blog FOSS Patents, www.fosspatents.com, as a consultant on competition-related matters, especially relating to standards-essential patents. Oracle notes that Mr. Mueller fully disclosed his relationship with Oracle in a blog posting dated April 18, 2012; that Oracle retained him after he had begun writing about this case; and that he was not retained to write about the case. Mr. Mueller is a frequent critic of Oracle and was a leading advocate against Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc., which led to Oracle's ownership of Sun's Java IP portfolio. A copy of Mr. Mueller's disclosure is attached as Exhibit A at 5.

I disclosed consulting work for Microsoft in October 2011, see http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html. At that point, no judge had asked for a disclosure, nor has this happened to date. I did it because it was the right thing to do.

At the end of last month I shut down my consulting firm in order to focus on my (Android and iOS) app development project. I'm still blogging, but less than before.

My consulting business had served numerous clients, not just Microsoft and Oracle. There were dozens of investment banks and funds who paid me to answer questions or participate in conference calls. I also did research for a couple of law firms and a German car manufacturer (that company allows me to refer to them like this but not to disclose the name, just industry and country).

I wish all others commenting on these types of issues were equally transparent.

They sued, sure, but when they went for a company who actually, you know, invent stuff, they lost. Must have hurt to lose to Elop, of all people.

Of course the company "that actually invents stuff" sued (nope, Apple didn't "go for" them) over FRAND patents to get access to Apple's "worthless" patents - and in the end all they got was their FRAND licensing money Apple wanted to pay from the start.

They sued, sure, but when they went for a company who actually, you know, invent stuff, they lost. Must have hurt to lose to Elop, of all people.

http://www.fosspatents.com/201...

Make sure you read his biography to get a sense of where he's coming from in this debate.

Android is facing a new (or is in a continuation of a) lawsuit over Java patent violations.
Manufacturers have to pay Microsoft fees for violating their patents" and earns more from Android than Windows phones.
For most users on most handsets there isn't a supported upgrade path to newer versions of Android. They have to deal with bugs and security issues with their old version.
Depending on the study, between 85 and 99% of all mobile malware is targeted to Android. (Although most of that is outside of Google's own store)

I tell my friends, "buy one if you want to...but everything else is safer". iOS, Windows, Blackberry, Symbian (the least safe and least supported of these), Tizen, etc.

*** I do not have an iPhone or an Android phone. I have a "semi smart" feature phone. ***

A more useful article that lists the patent numbers and claims in dispute.

I assume the parent was referring to IE's use of pointer events instead of the touch events. While many may accuse Microsoft of trying to split the web, this move was most likely done for two reasons.

1. Apple has been working to patent touch events
2. The ability to simplify event handling with one type of event that is input method independent -- working for mouse, touch, and pen.

As a web developer I find the pointer event method to be technically superior to touch events. At present, patches to add pointer events to Blink-based browsers (the patch might have been added before the split from WebKit) and to Firefox exist, but I do not believe they have yet landed in other browsers. Sadly, with the lack of touch events it does bloat up code to support two different event models for touch browsers at this time.

It's pretty incredible but sadly predictable that Apple can keep winning over juries in its home county of Santa Clara to award it damages mainly for a patent (pinch to zoom) already declared invalid twice by the USPTO. Thanks however to the US's weird system, Apple can go on appealing until 2017 or 2018 before it finally runs out of people to whine to. I'd like to think that sanity could prevail then, but as recent experience shows, the US President would have no qualms about vetoing any adverse judgement against Apple but would be okay letting it stand against Johnny Foreigner.

You do realise that Google has been using its Motorola patent portfolio to sue the exact same companies that are suing it, right?
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/googles-motorola-files-new-german.html?m=1

Google can't claim to be the good guys here.

No you didn't.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/new-zealand-parliament-adopts-uk.html

Licensing your patents under FRAND terms has more to do with what your innovation covers, in this case something that becomes adopted as a standard. These allow the fair use of the standard by competitors and drive the adoption of the standards and hence a monopoly. In this case it was about H.264 and 802.11 standards that that Microsoft was using that were patented by Motorola. What's not mentioned in this case is what other technology players are paying Motorola for use of the same patents. There's an excellent summary of the issues at the core of this case over at ip-watch and what this means for FRAND patents in general. While people may not like the players in this case (Google v. Microsoft) it is significant since it may mean that FRAND licencors may not get as much for these patents in the future. This would include Microsoft who has quite a few FRAND patents. It may also mean that those who currently license these patents from Google now may want to go back and re-negotiate citing the ruling because I couldn't find any reference to another licensee and what they were paying, maybe they're paying more or less? If they're paying less, then Microsoft would certainly have more cause to object to what Motorola was trying to charge.

Another aspect of this case that isn't mentioned is that we all know Google doesn't like Microsoft. The battles over the the Microsoft YouTube app releases recently highlights that these guys play cat and mouse games all the time. As part of the FRAND case, Google was using stall and delay tactics while negotiating with Microsoft over the FRAND agreement to drive up the possible damages they'd be awarded in this case. It just goes to show that "Do no evil" doesn't apply where patents are concerned with Google.

article title, and summary for that matter, are not exactly accurate. here's why (in great detail). http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/new-zealand-parliament-adopts-uk.html

Copyrights and trade secrets protected the software industry just fine before the USPTO opened the flood gates on software patents in the early 90's. They should stick to the original intent of the constitution, and protect the free flow of ideas by banning patents on mathematical algorithms (which includes software, IMO). They should not overturn the patents they've granted - that would harm the companies that filed them - but going forward, patents should cover something more than what can be executed in any mainstream computer language. If I can violate your patent simply by writing C code, it should not be patentable.

Software patents have resulted in:
The Open Invention Network
Peer to Patent
Oracle suing Google over Java
37 Android related patent suits
Nearly killing RIM
Linux patent suits ...

I'm afraid we're at the point where the anti-software-patent people warned we'd be. Small companies live in terror of being sued over any software they write. Big companies waste billions of dollars in court. Coders like me intentionally "code dumb", to avoid accidentally using a patented software idea. It's a terrible waste, and it makes me very sad to see America throwing away it's software innovation lead in this way. Thank God software patents weren't around when we wrote so much of the software that still powers the world. If they were, we'd all still be renting time on IBM mainframes. Just imagine a world where Donald Knuth patented all his ideas.

Microsoft holds a patent on this technology.

This is the 15th Android-related contract.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/apple-htc-settlement-is-already-15th.html

Meanwhile, Federal Trade Commission staff have formally recommended that the government sue Google over anti-trust violations involving the licensing of FRAND patents.

LOL android is free. Patent abuse will of course continue, with Microsoft, and Apple abusing the system for there own gains. The bottom line is Microsoft phones have hit a high of...2%, and Apples are down from 23.1% to 14.9%. Clearly they should be innovating instead of litigating.

The reality is though Patent settlements are what the mobile industry have *always* been about. Hell its part of the reason why FRAND exists.

The blue glow (or water effect) is a workaround. My Samsung SG2 came with the bouncy effect and got the water effect with an update later on, when Apple started suing Android manufacturers. By the way, that patent has been ruled invalid by the USPTO a few days ago http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html (it's a preliminary non final decision).

That said, I agree with you that the cause/effect relationship between can't-scroll/bounce-page might be non obvious. After one year I'm still not sure what I prefer, the bouncing or the watery effect. The bouncing is playful but it moves what you're trying to read. The water effect is a little dull but steady. One of the points made by others is that after you see the page bounce once you know how to implement it (but getting an animation that feels good can be tricky). This can't be kept secret, it's not the recipe of Coca Cola, so maybe against the spirit of patenting stuff.

Especially when you see what Motorola was doing to Microsoft. Microsoft licensed 2300 H264 patents for $6mil/year. Motorola wants $4 billion for their 50 H264 patents.

Apparently all these google fandroids cannot see blatant extortion even when you show the the facts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-20/google-s-motorola-mobility-offers-to-settle-microsoft-cases.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/googles-newest-h264-royalty-demand-is.html

It's not surprising that a Microsoft shill wouldn't be aware of the facts. Microsoft has been extorting money from Android OEM's and threatening others with lawsuits if they did not licence their worthless prior art ridden patents.

Especially when you see what Motorola was doing to Microsoft. Microsoft licensed 2300 H264 patents for $6mil/year. Motorola wants $4 billion for their 50 H264 patents.

Apparently all these google fandroids cannot see blatant extortion even when you show the the facts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-20/google-s-motorola-mobility-offers-to-settle-microsoft-cases.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/googles-newest-h264-royalty-demand-is.html

Because so far, Apple has been perfecting willing to pay for FRAND related patent use, but not willing to pay way more than other companies who also licence the same technology which is what Motorola has been demanding.

By perfectly willing, you of course mean willing to make a lowball offer in an attempt to avoid being found guilty of willful infringement (or whichever the proper terming would be here). Of course, neither of us have actual numbers to compare either companies offer to, but this does show your eagerness to paint Apple in a favorable light.

The judge has ALREADY realized Motorola has possibly been trying to do exactly that.

Nice phrasing. Attempting to make it appear as if Motorola is already guilty while not technically saying anything incorrect. You should work in politics. Of course you are digging heavily into "maybes", as nothing has been decided in that case, outside of the Judge deciding to look into it.

The courts will hopefully realize this isn't the first time Apple has been caught using a competitors patented technology

And when was that exactly?

Because so far, Apple has been perfecting willing to pay for FRAND related patent use, but not willing to pay way more than other companies who also licence the same technology which is what Motorola has been demanding.

The judge has ALREADY realized Motorola has possibly been trying to do exactly that.

In that very similar case of Microsoft vs. Motorola, Motorola may have demanded way more than would in fact be "R" from FRAND (reasonable). If that is the case the Google is the one in trouble, not Microsoft or Apple because you cannot join an FRAND patent pool and then extort specific licensees with outrageous fees.

then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products.

Nope. Read this related review of Microsoft vs. Google (er, Motorola) on FRAND

Basically judges everywhere agree you cannot use FRAND as a tool to extort way more money from successful companies than from others. The only question at hand is how much money Apple (and Microsoft) will be paying - even if Apple appeals it simply means delaying when they are paying Motorola, but will not result in Apple devices being blocked from sale.

$13.50 per device demand vs. $1 per device offer, considering Apple's offer to Samsung? If it wasn't FRAND, Motorola would be more than reasonable. Whether the demand for FRAND purposes is reasonable, however, depends on how much they charge to license to other companies than Apple.

Bzzzzt, wrong, they both have lost emails from same period and judge applied same reasoning to both. In the end, nothing about adverse inference was left in jury instructions. Do try harder.

Samsung had an agreement with Qualcomm that Qualcomm's license to Samsung's patents covered Qualcomm's customers. So Apple used Qualcomm's chips under the understanding that they were fully licensed. But apparently desperate because of Apple's many claims related to Samsung's copying, Samsung attempted to cancel Qualcomm's license as it pertains to Apple. This is of doubtful legality, as licensing of standards-essential patents is supposed to be nondiscriminatory. But it gives Samsung some basis for countersuit, which probably helps them with investors, at least for the moment.

I don't understand why people continue to make nonsense arguments that even the courts have found to be hogwash.

Samsung licenses the patents to Qualcomm. And then tells Qualcomm and Apple that *ONLY APPLE* does not have a patent license, every other customer of Qualcomm has.

You claim otherwise - what do you base your argument on?

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/03/samsung-suffers-second-and-even-more.html says:

"Furthermore, the court held that Samsung cannot assert 3G/UMTS patents against the iPhone 4S due to patent exhaustion: Apple is licensed by extension since it purchases baseband chips from Qualcomm, and Samsung's attempt to terminate its license agreement with Qualcomm as far as third-party beneficiary Apple is concerned failed because Samsung had make a commitment to ETSI, the standards body in charge of 3G, that it would grant irrevocable licenses to its 3G/UMTS-essential patents."

When it comes to attacking Google, he doesn't even limit himself to patent issues any more:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/googles-motorola-mobility-lays-off.html

Now he's not just a patents expert, despite not being a lawyer, he is also an expert on the whole industry, and has inside knowledge to tell us how buying Motorola is already a colossally bad deal mere months after the deal closed.

I despair for journalism, if this guy is what passes for it now.

Try this entry for blatant sock puppeting: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/microsoft-says-motorolas-efforts-to.html

Does he seriously believe that posting that and pretending to be unbiased is ok when he is conducting a study on the same topic that is funded by Microsoft: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html

Try this entry for blatant sock puppeting: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/microsoft-says-motorolas-efforts-to.html

Does he seriously believe that posting that and pretending to be unbiased is ok when he is conducting a study on the same topic that is funded by Microsoft: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html

Might I suggest you post a relevant link to help people who are less informed? I suggest this one myself. Without references, people tend to dismiss you as a fanboi, for one side or the other. And on a site where few even RTFA, you can't seriously expect people to take the initiative to Google something!

Your post seems to imply that Apple took the high road here. Without knowing the terms of that offer, I can't tell if it was anything but a PR stunt. From the tone of your post, one might suspect you know what the unspecified terms were. Care to post those details so we know that magnanimous Apple wasn't just offering a noose to Samsung in their offer?

Close tie with a patent on overall rectangular shape. Or the slide to unlock as of recently was not bad, surely Apple won't be out done in this regard.