37 Android Patent Lawsuits

Bad news for Google by developer85 · 2011-03-23 05:02 · Score: -1, Troll

There are actually two issues here.

First, this is great news for Microsoft and Meego. When manufacturers will start to get really sued for all the patent issues Google ignores, they will look at other possibilities. HTC has always been both Android and Windows Phone 7 supporter, so they will drop Android and just make Windows Phone 7 devices. So will all the other manufacturers. Developers will also jump ship to Microsoft and WP7 when they see the development platform - it's free of all the malware, piracy and other shit that Android market and freeloader userbase is filled with. They will absolutely love to use Visual Studio and C# instead of that crap and slow programming language called Java. Developers matter and Microsoft takes care of them.

Secondly, this is also bad news WebM. It's clear, like the summary states, that Google doesn't care about patent issues and this shows it even more. This careless approach from Google is just going to make manufacturers, website owners and companies avoid WebM at all costs. This will lead them to take H.264, which is pretty much guaranteed not to have any legal issues. Google is destroying their other projects too, not only Android.

Re:Bad news for Google by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-03-23 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where's the 'Astroturff' mod tag where we need one? I know it's in the list of requested mod options right below 'Asshat' and right above 'Bastard!'.
Re:Bad news for Google by smelch · 2011-03-23 05:15 · Score: 1, Troll

You're moderated troll, but I think you're just wrong on some things. Nobody is going to drop Android for Windows Phone 7, but it is an awesome platform for developers to work with. I got a Motorola Droid in November 09. When its time for my upgrade I will probably get a WP7 device just to make apps with it.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:Bad news for Google by MikeDirnt69 · 2011-03-23 05:40 · Score: 2

They will absolutely love to use Visual Studio and C# instead of that crap and slow programming language called Java. Developers matter and Microsoft takes care of them.
Please do not include me in your "they".

--
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
Re:Bad news for Google by Austerity+Empowers · 2011-03-23 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

First, this is great news for Microsoft and Meego. When manufacturers will start to get really sued for all the patent issues Google ignores, they will look at other possibilities. HTC has always been both Android and Windows Phone 7 supporter, so they will drop Android and just make Windows Phone 7 devices.
Way to make the inferior product de-facto. Same old Microsoft, this is why we wanted them destroyed, remember?
Re:Bad news for Google by phonewebcam · 2011-03-23 06:06 · Score: 1

Good news for those seeking even more patents on the cheap, too.
Re:Bad news for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Way to make the inferior product de-facto. Same old Microsoft, this is why we wanted them destroyed, remember?
This IS Microsoft posting. They do this every single time an anti-Android news article comes up. Within the same minute of the news article, they've already got a "glory to the almighty Microsoft" comment ready to go, top of the page. Hell, they're faster than even the first post trolls, and they're expecting us to not notice this somehow.
Put simply, Microsoft is scared shitless that A) they missed out on the mobile market, B) their attempts to buy into it are failing badly, and C) they can't buy out the current smartphone market leaders (Apple, Google, RIM). They're confused and desperate, thus they've got their clumsy astroturfing FUD squad out in full force, because that's all they know how to do. They're just as divorced from the real world as the rest of Microsoft's engineers, marketeers, and managementeers are, only they're trying to directly interact with people.
Re:Bad news for Google by smelch · 2011-03-23 06:33 · Score: 1, Funny

Why do I have to be moderated troll just because I like Microsoft products? I mean to be honest this is probably the only post I've made in a long time where I wasn't just trying to argue with people for the sake of arguing.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:Bad news for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:38 · Score: -1

Hey cunt, why don't you troll elsewhere.
Re:Bad news for Google by rtfa-troll · 2011-03-23 07:24 · Score: 3, Funny

So; The grandparent arrives suddenly having never posted before, is spending enough time refreshing to get a first post. I think we find that suspicious. We think that accusing WrongSizeGlass of trolling must be unfair and outrageous
But then let's look at the moderation on this (if you don't have an account you will want to sign up for one to see this stuff).
Starting Score: 1 point Moderation -2 70% Troll 30% Insightful Extra 'Troll' Modifier
If the moderation is 70/30 then the only possible solutions are multiples of 7 and 3 so at least three insightful moderations have been given. Now, the first post has some interesting comment. It's definitely a reflection of Microsoft's paranoia. However, there are too many things which are wrong which have been covered too often on Slashdot for any serious mod to mod it insightful. In any case, almost all legitimate positive moderation shows variety (underrated / interesting / insightful).
Looking at the facts there seem to be two possible explanations; a) the GNAA has returned having learned to troll subtly, pretending to be Microsoft Astroturfers and never ever linking to Goatse whilst building an elite undercover uber-posting super-moderators who can afford to give them mod points without risking losing the ability to moderate b) Microsoft is an immoral deceptive company using publicity people to spread lies and astroturfing like mad.
Obviously b) which would mean we do need a way to mod astroturfers is untenable so only a) can be true. Microsoft is an upstanding tax paying pillar of society. They would never ever ever astroturf and lie and cheat. WrongSizeGlass's moderation as troll must be justified.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Bad news for Google by dgatwood · 2011-03-23 07:55 · Score: 1

If the moderation is 70/30 then the only possible solutions are multiples of 7 and 3 so at least three insightful moderations have been given.
Or slashdot rounds the percentages to the nearest tens place. 33.33333% rounds down to 30%, 66.66666 rounds up to 70%.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Bad news for Google by nagnamer · 2011-03-23 08:12 · Score: 1, Troll

Why do I have to be moderated troll just because I like Microsoft products?
Yes, and welcome to slashdot. :)))

--
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
Re:Bad news for Google by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-03-23 08:14 · Score: 1

We think that accusing WrongSizeGlass of trolling must be unfair and outrageous
It is never unfair to mod me as 'Trolling'. Those with the mod points are those who 'vote'. Did I know I'd get modded as a 'Troll' for that post? I figured I'd get one of the negative moderations, but who cares? Those who modded it have just as much right state their view (via moderation) as I did via my post (which I still stand by).

WrongSizeGlass's moderation as troll must be justified.
I'm glad you cleared that up for everyone ;-)
Re:Bad news for Google by GooberToo · 2011-03-23 08:50 · Score: 1

As the other poster said, welcome to slashdot.
Sadly, most slashdotters here these days have no clue whatsoever about the things they post. They have an opinion, regardless of how learned that opinion is, they share. That wasn't always the case. Even worse, troll moderation seems to be on par with valid moderation. Which means its a coin toss if a reasonable comment will be punished or promoted - or both. Even worse, while MS does deserve critical comments for their extremely long history of illegal and unethetical behavior, many brainlessly hold a grudge and attempt to punish any post which mentions Microsoft in anything other than a negative light. Even worse, many troll moderations are made strictly on the basis of who posted rather than the merits of the post.
If you want to read truthful or factual posts, especially on provocative articles (like copyright, anti-FOSS, piracy, etc.), you have to read at -1 else you've likely been censored by those attempting to hide the truth of mislead those who may not be fully aware or on the fence. The pro-piracy crowd is especially bad at censoring anything which conflicts with their propaganda war.
Sadly, it seems, most people either don't meta moderate or have such poor reading comprehension skills, they can't even follow simple instructions and do it properly. Of course, the same is also true for moderating in the first place.
Oh how slashdot has fallen...
Re:Bad news for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

brainlessly hold a grudge and attempt to punish any post which mentions Microsoft in anything other than a negative light.
Microsoft IS using a Reputation Manager (like RepuationDefender to post and moderate on Slashdot. That distorts discussion and makes it nearly impossible to identify if your posts are sincere.
If you don't want to be modded down for supporting a company which is attempting to destroy open conversation on Slashdot, then you need to work out how to differentiate yourself from their Reputation Managers. Better still, persuade Microsoft to stop treating our discussions as their property.
Re:Bad news for Google by dave87656 · 2011-03-23 16:13 · Score: 1

They will absolutely love to use Visual Studio and C# instead of that crap and slow programming language called Java.

Care to substantiate?
Funny how C# is still stuck way behind Java, C and C++ in worldwide usage.
Re:Bad news for Google by dave87656 · 2011-03-23 16:18 · Score: 1

Why do I have to be moderated troll just because I like Microsoft products?
Because you make complete unsubstantiated claims that contradict all reality. There are a lot of Windows supporters here, too. /. is a technical crowd. Just because your PC came delivered with Windows on it does not make it a better OS. And just because you know C# does not make it better than Java. Java used to be slow ... about 10 years ago.
Re:Bad news for Google by rtfa-troll · 2011-03-23 20:19 · Score: 1

Because the grandparent was completely Astroturf and moderated down for a good reason. By replying to it you are increasing the discussion about it and doing the work for the astroturfer. You are directing the discussion away from Microsoft's need to use lawsuits in a market where they can't compete through lack of platform and towards a minor issue; the quality of the development tools on WP7; which almost nobody here, let alone normal users, will ever care about.
Trolling is exactly trying to misdirect discussion; you have succeeded (I'm even being trolled here, replying to you, but it's an important point as long as people like your other respondents try to pretend that this is some kind of anti-Microsoft campaign). Your moderation as a troll was 100% correct, whatever your intentions.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();

Scare tactics by nicholas22 · 2011-03-23 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative

These are clearly scare tactics to try to curb the adoption of the platform. But will they succeed? Judging from how these types of things pan out with open source projects the answer is no, because there is little profit to be made. I say it is already too late to try and stop Android now.

Re:Scare tactics by Nerdfest · 2011-03-23 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or they're trying to litigate themselves a piece of a very lucrative pie.
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:16 · Score: 1

These patent suits won't kill Android - the open source project - sure. But it may well stop companies from putting it on their devices (or risk being sued and having to pay up), which could have a very bad impact on Android's momentum. I have no clue how bad thish could get, but I am worried :/
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:21 · Score: 0

I have no clue how bad thish could get, but I am worried :/
No, Florian, you couldn't care less, except about how it may affect your paycheck.
Re:Scare tactics by Anne+Thwacks · 2011-03-23 05:23 · Score: 2

Why worry? Bear bating can be fun - for spectators. Especially if the bear gets loose!
Expect some lawyers to make money, and a few trolls to get molested.

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Re:Scare tactics by alvinrod · 2011-03-23 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, there's a good deal of profit to be made. HTC already settled a suit with Microsoft and is now paying Microsoft royalties for the Android devices they sell. Some of the companies that file them don't care if Android continues to be wildly successful because they'll still make money. If Oracle is successful in their suit, it's possible that Google or the handset manufacturers will owe some amount of money for every Android device sold. At that point it's in Oracle's interest to make sure Android keeps doing well because they make money off of it.
Re:Scare tactics by poetmatt · 2011-03-23 05:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

They will not even come close to succeeding, and here's the proof:
how many of these lawsuits found anyone guilty of anything? How many have settled due to a judgment? Answer: zero.
The only settlement to date, was a private one with samsung where samsung buckled to MS and did not go to court at all.
Other than that, none of settled, and none have found conclusively on anything. That should tell you how well android is doing, that all we have is misinformation to "Scare people away".
It's way too late to stop android, beyond of which that even if android is found "guilty", what are you going to do? Stop distribution? Ms aims to stop at the manufacturer level, but if they really wanted they could ship devices with nothing but firmware to let people flash the roms themselves. It's quite impossible to prevent distribution.
Re:Scare tactics by poetmatt · 2011-03-23 05:30 · Score: 2

Oh man, how did I miss this? From the article:

Mueller writes that for Google it could be a spell for trouble
Yes, that Florian. Why do people even bother printing articles from the man?
Re:Scare tactics by ackthpt · 2011-03-23 05:44 · Score: 1

A way around that would be to declare the software is all free. It's just the hardware they are selling.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:12 · Score: 0

I'm not sure how declaring Vista free would help. Ever.
Re:Scare tactics by jgagnon · 2011-03-23 06:14 · Score: 1

I firmly believe that most companies that have jumped on the Android bandwagon know full well what risks they are taking. The Android bus has a very long route and is picking up more passengers all the time. The real question on my mind is what happens when the bus is full?

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Re:Scare tactics by increment1 · 2011-03-23 06:17 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, even if the software is free, it does not absolve you from damages for distributing it. Only in the case where you negotiated a percentage only licensing deal would having a free product impact your royalty payments.
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:53 · Score: 0

I have no clue how bad thish could get, but I am worried :/
Thish? Is thish Sean Connery poshting as anonymoush coward?
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 07:12 · Score: 0

HTC already settled a suit with Microsoft and is now paying Microsoft royalties for the Android devices they sell.
Which is why my new phone will not be an HTC.
Re:Scare tactics by Tetsujin · 2011-03-23 07:24 · Score: 1

They will not even come close to succeeding, and here's the proof:
how many of these lawsuits found anyone guilty of anything? How many have settled due to a judgment? Answer: zero.
The only settlement to date, was a private one with samsung where samsung buckled to MS and did not go to court at all.
But that's the thing. If Microsoft comes after you with a patent lawsuit, your choices are to either cave to their demands, or fight a costly legal battle (and then, possibly, be forced to cave to their demands.)
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, only whether you have the money to stand up to a very powerful rival company.

--
Bow-ties are cool.
Re:Scare tactics by poetmatt · 2011-03-23 07:30 · Score: 1

This is not true, and it has never been true.
Companies such as barnes and nobles are HUGE companies who do not buckle to the likes of Microsoft.
If they went after you or I? We'd be fucked without EFF support. However, the companies they're suing over android are in no way small fry.
Re:Scare tactics by dgatwood · 2011-03-23 08:10 · Score: 1

On the other hand, if the phone manufacturers did not distribute the software at all, but rather required you to run a piece of software that downloads and installs the OS directly from Google, it would likely absolve them. I think that's what the GP was trying to get at. Or maybe not. Hard to say. My interpretation was that they were looking for a way to shift the patent suits to Google (where they belong) instead of to a mere distributor.
Actually, this is one thing that bothers me about patent law. I'm of the opinion that one tiny change would make it much, much better: require that any lawsuit over patent infringement must first occur with the first party in the supply chain that ostensibly infringed the patent. In this case, it would be Google. In the case of commercial codec licensing, it would be the manufacturer of the video gear that did not pay a commercial use licensing fee, but who should reasonably have known when they sold the product to you that it would be used commercially. In the case of a chip vendor suing a product vendor for using their patented technology, that product vendor could simply point up the chain and say, "You have to sue the chip vendor that provided us with those parts first." And so on.
Require a judgment for each vendor in the chain prior to filing suit against the next vendor, and make it grounds for dismissal of the case (with prejudice for repeat offenders) if this rule is not followed. Finally, make it such that if the previous case did not find in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must prove that the primary reason for that loss was that the earlier vendor could not have been aware that the later vendor was going to use the product in an infringing way.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Scare tactics by nagnamer · 2011-03-23 08:22 · Score: 1

And the next stop is in front of the court, no doubt. Oh wait, we've already been there... multiple times.

--
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 08:28 · Score: 0

you should move to new zealand
Re:Scare tactics by sessamoid · 2011-03-23 08:42 · Score: 1

This is not true, and it has never been true.
Companies such as barnes and nobles are HUGE companies who do not buckle to the likes of Microsoft.
If they went after you or I? We'd be fucked without EFF support. However, the companies they're suing over android are in no way small fry.
What? Barnes and Noble is "HUGE"? Since when? Barnes and Noble has a market capitalization of slightly over half a billion dollars. Microsoft makes that much in PROFIT in a week. MSFT could buy BKS out of petty cash and never even notice the purchase. I'd guess that Microsoft pays nearly as much in lawyers salaries and legal expenses per year as Barnes and Noble is worth as a whole company.

--
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Re:Scare tactics by node+3 · 2011-03-23 09:15 · Score: 1

After a certain point (which Barnes and Noble is clearly large enough to afford), I don't see how this helps much. It's not like you can do much more with 500 lawyers than you can with 100. What are the extra lawyers going to do? Tag-team every 5 minutes so they don't wear themselves out?
Research and expertise and focus do benefit from small initial increases in the number of lawyers. So the OPs point stands. For you or me, we probably can't even afford one lawyer to defend us for a full trial of this sort. Barnes and Noble can easily afford several.
Re:Scare tactics by node+3 · 2011-03-23 09:22 · Score: 1

Ms aims to stop at the manufacturer level, but if they really wanted they could ship devices with nothing but firmware to let people flash the roms themselves. It's quite impossible to prevent distribution.
If that were the way Android was distributed, it would certainly prevent distribution to well over 99.9+% of its current market.
Re:Scare tactics by jrumney · 2011-03-23 13:15 · Score: 3, Informative

HTC included a number of their own components for interfacing to Microsoft desktop and server software in their Android devices. These components were implementing features that were present in HTC's older Windows Mobile devices. It is likely that Microsoft's patents were related to these, though because they settled we will never get to see the list of actual patents. With Barnes and Noble, they have gone after a tablet which has features that are quite likely not generic to Android. If Microsoft had any patents relating to Android itself, and it was acting in good faith, then it would be going after Google to get the problem sorted out quickly, not picking off targets at the periphery and using them for FUD value.
Re:Scare tactics by joshtheitguy · 2011-03-23 13:28 · Score: 1

On the other hand, if the phone manufacturers did not distribute the software at all, but rather required you to run a piece of software that downloads and installs the OS directly from Google, it would likely absolve them. I think that's what the GP was trying to get at. Or maybe not. Hard to say. My interpretation was that they were looking for a way to shift the patent suits to Google (where they belong) instead of to a mere distributor.
Actually, this is one thing that bothers me about patent law. I'm of the opinion that one tiny change would make it much, much better: require that any lawsuit over patent infringement must first occur with the first party in the supply chain that ostensibly infringed the patent. In this case, it would be Google. In the case of commercial codec licensing, it would be the manufacturer of the video gear that did not pay a commercial use licensing fee, but who should reasonably have known when they sold the product to you that it would be used commercially. In the case of a chip vendor suing a product vendor for using their patented technology, that product vendor could simply point up the chain and say, "You have to sue the chip vendor that provided us with those parts first." And so on.
Require a judgment for each vendor in the chain prior to filing suit against the next vendor, and make it grounds for dismissal of the case (with prejudice for repeat offenders) if this rule is not followed. Finally, make it such that if the previous case did not find in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must prove that the primary reason for that loss was that the earlier vendor could not have been aware that the later vendor was going to use the product in an infringing way.
I'd be all for this solution where I get to buy the hardware and then I get to compile the Android source myself including any restricted extras I want instead of the vendor crapping it up, all I'd need is the hardware vendor to actually provide the drivers.
I don't see how it isn't a win-win for everyone and all you would nee for non tech people is the USB cable in the box, an active internet connection requirement to get the source from Google then finally a simple self compiler script with the only options of "next" then "finish".
Too bad this will never happen.
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 13:53 · Score: 0

Yep, suing can help spread the adoption of Android.
Suing is used to spread the wealth. Of course, isn't that the only solution for corporations to survive but get on the open source bandwagon by definition?
Re:Scare tactics by Skal+Tura · 2011-03-23 19:00 · Score: 2

Indeed scare tactics, but this also shows two things:
A) Android is considered a threat
B) Patent system is flawed and stiffles innovation

--
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
Re:Scare tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-25 10:06 · Score: 0

Actually no one knows anything about HTC's deal with MS. What it most likely is that HTC effectively pays MS nothing, but in exchange signed up to make WP7 phones.

37?!? by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-03-23 05:12 · Score: 1

Is there an Android app for following and tracking these lawsuits? I'd sure like the process to be just as easy as using an Android phone, because let's face it, these lawsuits wouldn't be pestering Android if they weren't a major force to be reckoned with in the smartphone market.

Re:37?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:23 · Score: 0

Im sure one would be easy to make but you might get sued for it ;)
Re:37?!? by Lorien_the_first_one · 2011-03-23 06:04 · Score: 1

Right. No lawsuits for MeeGo yet.

--
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Re:37?!? by Anne+Thwacks · 2011-03-23 06:33 · Score: 1

Or users, for that matter!

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Re:37?!? by Lorien_the_first_one · 2011-03-23 06:49 · Score: 1

I would hope that after watching SCO, they would know better.

--
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Re:37?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 07:28 · Score: 0

brb going to make one. I just need to find sources that are more reliable than /. to keep track of it all.

37 in one year? by cyberfin · 2011-03-23 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google must be something right. In the sense that they're allowing manufacturers come up with ways of using technology that pisses off big patent holders. Whether they're wrong or right I think is irrelevant, just the fact that they're pissed off.

--
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill

Re:37 in one year? by MickyTheIdiot · 2011-03-23 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wish I had mod points. The poster is right on point.
One way to get rid of this ridiculous patent situation tech is in right now is for big, not-so-evil companies to innovate and let some of these suits happen. When these get to trial I think a lot of these patent holders are going to look ridiculous to judges. We need judicial review of the entire system by a good, non-corrupt judge. Too bad the non-corrupt judges are hard to find.
Re:37 in one year? by girlintraining · 2011-03-23 06:01 · Score: 1

We should coin a law about this: The products competitiveness and usefulness for the consumer in the United States is directly proportional to the number of lawsuits filed against it to keep it off the market.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:37 in one year? by TheEyes · 2011-03-23 06:18 · Score: 1

We should coin a law about this: The products competitiveness and usefulness for the consumer in the United States is directly proportional to the number of lawsuits filed against it to keep it off the market.
Er, wait, doesn't that mean that i4i's suit against Microsoft makes OOXML a "good" thing?
I think this "law" needs some refinement.
Re:37 in one year? by naasking · 2011-03-23 10:20 · Score: 0

It's not hard to piss off big patent holders. Just use their patents to make money without paying them. Works like a charm every time.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.

Give it a rest Florian by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:13 · Score: -1

enough with the FUD already

Florian by MikeKD · 2011-03-23 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative

More crap from Florian Mueller?

Yes.

Re:Florian by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:06 · Score: 0

Was their any doubt? Odds are about 98% that the anonymous submitter is Florian himself. The world would be a much better place if everyone just stopped paying attention to his ignorant rantings. It is an embarrassment, and I'm incredibly surprised to see this junk on Slashdot: This nonsense is better suited to anti-Android fandroid sites.
Re:Florian by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:13 · Score: 0

Isn't this Florian Mueller behind the no software patents movement? I would have expected better.
And what is his beef with Android anyways? It's almost as if he's got a vendetta against Android or something:
http://asktechman.com/?tag=florian-mueller
What exactly does the Xoom trademark have to do with FOSS patents? Maybe he's just mad that he got made a fool of over the whole Android code thing?

Yet more FUD by messagelost · 2011-03-23 05:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Why does slashdot keep posting Florian Muller's inane anti-Andriod ramblings? Surely if there is such a looming threat, someone besides a repeatedly discredited hack has to be writing about it.

Re:Yet more FUD by decipher_saint · 2011-03-23 05:29 · Score: 1

Because we keep getting trolled into commenting and getting them more ad revenue, that's why.

--
crazy dynamite monkey
Re:Yet more FUD by thestudio_bob · 2011-03-23 05:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why does slashdot keep posting [INSERT-PERSON-AGAINST-COMPANY-X] inane anti-[INSERT-COMPANY-X-PRODUCT] ramblings? Surely if there is such a looming threat, someone besides a repeatedly discredited hack has to be writing about it.
All fans of company X and their products, please copy and store for future use. You're welcome.

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
Re:Yet more FUD by hey! · 2011-03-23 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, the summary at least brings up an interesting and important point. We all know that Google is a major innovator, but for a such a technology driven company they have relatively few patents. It may be that it simply doesn't take the throw the crap against the wall and see sticks approach to patenting. That's a good thing for society, but maybe not so good for Google.
Just because you ignore abusive patent practices doesn't mean those practices ignore *you*. One of the reasons companies amass huge patent portfolios is as defensive armor. You threaten to tie me up with BS lawsuits and I'll return the favor.
Think about that. Under the system of software patents we have now, you have to abuse the system to protect yourself from abuse of the system.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Yet more FUD by fermion · 2011-03-23 05:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

One has to wonder if there are some shenanigans going on. Android is spoken of in glowing hyperbolic terms, often asserting that the development team were superheroes, but they did not appear to actually have a product, and were quite quick to sell out to Google, indicating that they might have had known that the Android tech was not something they could get onto the market themselves. Certainly the Danger tech had little success, and has become part of MS.
For Google to get android out so quickly it had to copy the iPhone and other existing model instead of innovating. The one innovation on the smartphone, the open model to the end user, and the keyboard, are not roaring successes. The end user does not have right to keep Apps on the Android if Google wants to delete them, mobile phone vendors are locking the phone, and many models do not have the keyboard. Multitouch with is an non-obvious innovation was lifted from Apple instead of created independently.
This is not to say that the lawsuits are good or bad, just that HTC had a relationship with MS that could have lead to some IP contamination, and Apple clearly has some traction in assertion that it invented a device with others are using without permissions. In this case, neither Apple or MS are patent trolls since they both have unique products that they market. OTOH, the android devices are neither unique or innovative.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Yet more FUD by messagelost · 2011-03-23 05:55 · Score: 2

Why does slashdot keep posting [INSERT-PERSON-AGAINST-COMPANY-X] inane anti-[INSERT-COMPANY-X-PRODUCT] ramblings? Surely if there is such a looming threat, someone besides a repeatedly discredited hack has to be writing about it.
All fans of company X and their products, please copy and store for future use. You're welcome.
Now that you're done with a sarcastic response, perhaps you'd actually like to respond to the issue. Florian Muller has, in the last week alone, tried to scare up a bogus "serious Linux copyright threat" and got roundly slapped down as inane. He clearly no understanding of copyright law, patent law, Linux or Andriod. Why slashdot keeps posting his blog as if he was an expert on these is baffling.
Re:Yet more FUD by hairyfeet · 2011-03-23 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because even a broken clock is right twice a day? We have seen from the lawsuits over their book scanning that Google DOES play fast and loose with the rules, then add in the fact that Google refuses to indemnify their OEMs that use Android or WebM and the fact that while Google makes the money on the searches they take NONE of the risks that the OEMs are facing spells BAD NEWS in my book.
Well Google be able to pull it off? Who knows, balls and a lot of money have gotten many people very far in the past. But one has to ask how long the usually VERY risk averse OEMs are gonna be willing to have their asses just hanging in the breeze ready to be hit by patent trolls while Google rakes in the cash while not stepping in to their corner to share the burden.
Sorry but I believe the first poster was right, this will be good for MSFT, Meego and H.264 and bad with a capital b for Android. You can go WinPhone and be indemnified by MSFT or Meego and be covered by Intel. MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify but with their patent portfolio anybody that makes anything to do with video or audio would be suicidal to step in the ring with them. Go Android and you better have some good lawyers on retainer. Now if you are a risk averse OEM, which would you choose? Free as in beer isn't so free if I have to pay lawyers to constantly fight lawsuits now is it?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:41 · Score: 0

Florian submits this garbage as Anonymous and the editors always put it on the front page. I've stopped even bothering to login any more because of this and the slashvertisements.
Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yet, every time Google patents something stupid, Slashdot is full of posts saying "So much for 'Don't be Evil'....", regardless of the fact that Google doesn't abuse it's portfolio and still doesn't have a large enough one to fend of attacks.
Re:Yet more FUD by lorenlal · 2011-03-23 07:19 · Score: 2

This is a very good point actually. Thank you AC.
It looks to me like Google is hoping someone decides to step up sue them. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a great show... We might finally get that patent reform we've all been asking for.
Re:Yet more FUD by 517714 · 2011-03-23 07:54 · Score: 1

His status as an expert is not an issue, he is the village idiot, but his status as a catalyst for a lively discussion is hard to deny. We don't come to this forum so we can talk about the weather.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Yet more FUD by tlhIngan · 2011-03-23 10:27 · Score: 1

There'll be an Android patent license consortium if that's the case similar to what MPEG-LA does. You can license the patents individually from Apple/Microsoft/etc/etc/etc or just pay one entitiy and get all their licenses in one bundle.
Google makes the code available. OEMs will be encouraged to buy the consortium licensing, and life will go on as it always has. Price of the patent licenses will be just a cost of using Android and its ecosystem, nothing more. It's a strong enough ecosystem that could support it anyhow.
Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 12:34 · Score: 0

considering the patents microsoft is suing over, it probably doesn't make a difference whether google has any or not, because patents are broken.
just because microsoft is becoming irrelevant in the mobile os market doesn't mean they can sue everyone else because everyone else uses obvious ideas that microsoft "did first" (they didn't, they did the same thing)
thinking like yours is why nothing has changed
Re:Yet more FUD by burnin1965 · 2011-03-23 13:41 · Score: 1

> One has to wonder...
Actually, no, there is no need to wonder. The only innovation in the iPhone is taking ideas and technology from other people and companies and putting it on a smart phone.
The multi-touch you seem to think everyone stole from Apple, guess what... Multitouch Overview.
Apple is not even close to being the inventor of multi-touch and it is not even that difficult to discover this fact if one simply does a quick google search before making false assumptions and writing a paragraph based on those false assumptions.
The iPhone is a pretty cool device but lets not get carried away and start making suggestions that other manufacturers and developers are lifting ideas from Apple without first checking to see if the ideas actually came from Apple in the first place.
Re:Yet more FUD by burnin1965 · 2011-03-23 13:57 · Score: 2

You can go WinPhone and be indemnified by MSFT
Unfortunately that indemnification that you paid for does not cover nobody wanting to buy your product. I am pretty sure the smartphone manufacturers could not care less which OS is running on the phone as long as they sell like crazy.
When Asus was working on the first netbooks they tried to get Windows XP from Microsoft because they already knew from their research that nobody was going to pay a premium price for a low power laptop running Windows 7. Highly portable laptops were not a new concept, dirt cheap highly portable laptops were. Microsoft refused because obviously there was a risk of the Windows XP licenses cannibalizing their recently released, very expensive, super high profit margin Windows 7 product.
Given the choice of trying to sell a low power highly portable laptop with an OS that costs about as much as the hardware itself which was doomed to failure and risking Microsoft and all the paid FUDsters boogie man stories about the patent issues in linux they still released the first netbooks with linux and there was no Windows option.
Yes there is a cheap version of Windows 7 on netbooks now and at least in the U.S. they almost exclusive sell with Windows, but this was the goal of the netbooks in the first place, Microsoft had to capitulate or face losing out on market share. Since most people want a familiar OS on their laptops it only made sense for Microsoft to give in and put together a cheap version of Windows 7 fo the netbook market.
Smartphones are a different story. Nobody wants a WinPhone, there is no opportunity for capitulation because the phone makers know nobody wants a WinPhone, its a dead end. So given the choice of making phones that nobody wants versus making the phones that sell like crazy and taking on the companies that hate competition it is a no brainer, you make the product people will buy and go to court.
Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 16:18 · Score: 0

he is the village idiot
Ahh, yes! That's the level of maturity I've come to expect from the FOSS crowd. That's why I'm here.
Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 17:25 · Score: 0

You must be new here.
Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 18:00 · Score: 0

Even though he's clearly an ultra-biased hack, it's important to monitor the verbal diarrhea of people like Florian Mueller from a "know-thy-enemy" standpoint.
Much in the way it's important to monitor what Fox News is spewing onto the willing minds of it's clones, drones and cult members, it's important to monitor similar focal points in the technology sector because when found travelling in herds, like it or not, numbskulls carry influence.
Florian Mueller's words may not steer your opinion very much, and you may be able to see through the paper thin veneer and poke holes in his arguments while sitting at your computer and ruminating over the article point by point. But that doesn't make his soap box inconsequential. Indeed, if you don't like the way Florian Mueller ensconces his hollow pro-closed-source agenda in techno-legal-jargonese, better roll up your sleeves wade knee deep into it right now and practice your aim at all its softest least defensible points. Memorize that shit chapter and verse, because when your met with a horde of meat-headed vendor centric goons with careers invested in useless certifications and license agreements they will parrot the talking points of turds like Mueller until blue in the face.
If you don't believe that brute overt tactics like that can gain success, go revisit the 2004 RNC in New York, and watch how the horde starts shrieking "FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!" when anti-war activists try to interrupt. I don't draw such analogies in any attempt to link the politics of *shudder* The Bush Era with these technology sector quibbles, but I would wager that the same mixture and interplay of lazy vs. motivated, advantaged vs. unprepared and manipulative mob-gang-up is required to gain a mediocre platform the necessary clout to achieve market dominance as would have beenneeded to touch off the VERY unnecessary Iraq war.
Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 18:11 · Score: 0

it's sort of like how corruption was endemic to Rome, which in turn only helped promote its chain-reaction of conquer, enslave, prosper.
thus: "When in Rome..."
Re:Yet more FUD by vegiVamp · 2011-03-23 19:42 · Score: 1

> it had to copy the iPhone and other existing model instead of innovating
There are only so many ways to display a button that starts an application. The main "innovation" that Apple brought to the iPhone, was multitouch - and even that had been done before, just not in a commercial application.
I won't go as far as to say that innovation is overrated, but packaging and marketing existing technologies is not innovating. Apple produces fine products - smooth, clean, and mostly just works - but they're not the innovators their marketeers make you believe they are.
Speaking of displaying buttons, though - how about hexagonal buttons? You could fit more of them on the screen, then. Would you consider this an innovative idea ?

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.

Legalese into obvlivion? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:16 · Score: 0

Are any of these lawsuits really founded, or is this just backlash from an industry that is hellbent on making sure an ~open OS handset does not become cemented at a time when wide-scale High-Speed cellular is about to be unleashed ( at least, marketed...)?

Curious what this says exactly for the 'free market' chaps, since shouldn't the consumers decide rather than the bean-counters and legal hounds? With the pending AT&T-TM merger lingering, I guess having a 'free market' in the US is somewhat of an oxymoron.

It seems the redefining of terms has leaked into the tech sector. NN is bad, but good. Cellular pricing is good since there's competition, but bad if you're a consumer. I'd better make sure up is still up, and whether dogs are living with cats now...

Re:Legalese into obvlivion? by MickyTheIdiot · 2011-03-23 05:41 · Score: 2

Most "free market" chaps in the U.S. are only pro-free market when it the market is deciding in their favor. When the market is NOT in their favor all of a sudden they are for "crippling" government regulation.
Re:Legalese into obvlivion? by AvitarX · 2011-03-23 06:26 · Score: 2

I think a lot of corporations are horrified about the open nature of android. It is dangerous specifically because it is generally not open to the end user (rooting, and a few models from google aside).
The fact that it is open allows companies to really modify it (blur sucks, but sense is good), and do so cheaply. Generally the end-user does not care about openness, they can't code anyway, but the OEM that is trying to sell a locked product gains much from the openness. The open platform on closed hardware is new, and could really kill some margins, and it is in a market where the openness has true impact for the consumer (being the OEMs).

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

when R&D won't do. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:17 · Score: 0

When billions spent on R&D just doesn't cut the mustard anymore, sic your lawyers on your competitors' customers. That'll stop your competitors in their tracks...

Re:when R&D won't do. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:49 · Score: 0

Correction: when competitors steal your legally-protected ideas that came from billions in R&D, sic your lawyers on them.
Re:when R&D won't do. by king+neckbeard · 2011-03-23 05:54 · Score: 1

First of all, there is no stealing. Also, if the patents being infringed by android took billions in R&D to make, then perhaps you need to change your R&D strategy..

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:when R&D won't do. by jedidiah · 2011-03-23 06:42 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, those "legally-protected ideas" are pretty trivial.
This is clearly what a new OS in the patent abuse age has to deal with.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:when R&D won't do. by powerlord · 2011-03-23 06:44 · Score: 1

First of all, there is no stealing. Also, if the patents being infringed by android took billions in R&D to make, then perhaps you need to change your R&D strategy..
Or lower/eliminate the cost of Patent Filing ...
Or sue your lawyers for wasting your fees with irrelevant frivolity ...
Or reform Patent Law so you can not file for algorithms, which is in large part all most computer programs are.

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.

Similar for iOS? by getNewNickName · 2011-03-23 05:18 · Score: 1

Aren't there lawsuits against iOS too? Patent lawsuits are just a cost of doing business these days.

Re:Similar for iOS? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-23 05:36 · Score: 1

There was a Nokia->Apple lawsuit, but that was over GSM (i.e. hardware), not iOS. I don't recall any lawsuits about the OS itself.
Re:Similar for iOS? by larry+bagina · 2011-03-23 05:54 · Score: 1

There are plenty of others, usually from patent trolls, though. Earlier this month, there was one over smartphone camera functionality.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

FOSS Patents and Florian Mueller? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:18 · Score: 0

Seems kind of.. sketchy?
Using FOSS in the name seems a bit misleading. And who is this Florian Mueller "Forbes" guy? Is he trustworthy to be a spokesman for FOSS issues?
Forbes and FOSS doesn't seem to match.

Poor Graph, D+ at best by rufty_tufty · 2011-03-23 05:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

That is a poor and misleading graph for several reasons not least:
There is no comparison to other software platforms
The style chosen only escalates, the graph doesn't go down when the court case is resolved in either party's favour.
Ambiguous because not all court cases are equal, some cases could be more valid than others.

FUD, IMO

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -

Re:Poor Graph, D+ at best by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:05 · Score: 0

Also - it doesn't start at zero in the interests of looking 'taller'
It's colored scary red.
Re:Poor Graph, D+ at best by 517714 · 2011-03-23 07:01 · Score: 1

What? You don't believe there were negative six lawsuits in January 2010?

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Poor Graph, D+ at best by jeffmeden · 2011-03-23 08:54 · Score: 1

Don't forget, Florian had help from a REAL LIVE graphic designer! He probably used all kinds of professional tools, like Adobe Illustrator, to make that graph possible. That counts for something, right? Right?

FOSS Patents Blog is a troll against FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:19 · Score: 0, Informative

Who pays Florian Mueller to say this? Microsoft? Apple? Unisys? SCO?

He pretends to be an advocate of free software yet he speaks constantly against free software.

His blog is nothing more than spreading FUD against free software.

Re:FOSS Patents Blog is a troll against FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 07:13 · Score: 0

Apart from his recent Linux header copyright brouhaha (which, to be fair, has still not been properly addressed by the appropriate parties), his writings are pretty accurate, and he does have a much greater knowledge of patent matters than the random slashdotter or AC. I see no FUD if he keeps pointing out how patents affect free software, especially since he is talking about actual lawsuits in progress.
Re:FOSS Patents Blog is a troll against FOSS by SnowZero · 2011-03-23 21:57 · Score: 1

Apart from his recent Linux header copyright brouhaha (which, to be fair, has still not been properly addressed by the appropriate parties),
Linus himself has spoken on the issue, the FSF's stance is pretty clear from what they've said in the past (and haven't changed), it was discussed in detail on Groklaw, and a ZDNet contributor got a statement from a technology lawyer contradicting the claims of Naughton. What more do you wantt? -- a Ietter signed by all the 1000s of Linux contributors, living and dead?

his writings are pretty accurate,
Really? He's been wrong on almost all of his opinions ever since he tried to block the Sun sale to Oracle along with Monty Wiidenius based on a ridiculous interpretation of the GPL (hey that seems like a theme, doesn't it?). At the time he was smaked down by Eblen Moglen himself (see Groklaw's story).

and he does have a much greater knowledge of patent matters than the random slashdotter or AC.
That's a pretty low bar. It's clear he understands a lot, but he only reports strangely twisted facts so that it always comes out as something Microsoft would agree with. In the process he makes absurd statements that have been debunked repeatedly by folks with more knowledge or better track records such as the FSF or Groklaw. You can look on his own blog where he has trouble defending his position -- he has to pretend various other comments, threads, and stories don't exist to defend his position, while others are providing clear references and links.
In the end, he looks like a fool precisely because he can't say what is true, but what his apparent sponsor needs him to say, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

I see no FUD if he keeps pointing out how patents affect free software, especially since he is talking about actual lawsuits in progress.
You don't seem to understand the definition of FUD. The best FUD is real facts, used irrelevantly or out of context. For example, it is FUD for a large car dealership to say:
"Even though he's got a lower price, I'd be worried from Dealer X, as he has a small business. Did you know that many small businesses that size fail every year? They might fail too and not be able to live up to their support contract like we can. With such low prices, he's probably losing money right now and could fail at any time. But of course, make your own choice based on what you are comfortable with."
See, nothing there is actually untrue, it's just that such stats taken out of context give you no real data on how these *specific* businesses are doing. The idea is to put a kernel of doubt in the person hearing it, so they will go along with you while thinking they are making an informed choice.
As others have pointed out, Florian is clearly trying to imply an extrapolation using a scary red color, he starts his graph at *negative* six lawsuits, ignores that lawsuits take years on an OS only a few years old, and ignores the outcome or expected outcome of any lawsuit. The idea is simply to make you worry about using Android. Yet if you think about it, if you were to graph the total awards in *successful* patent lawsuits against Microsoft since 1978, that also will go up and to the right. Does that mean Windows is in danger, or just that there's a big successful pie and plenty of people with patents who want to try to grab a slice?
And when he brings up indemnity, how can you *not* remember SCO and their eerily similar (and ultimately unsuccessful) FUD campaign?
I hope it pays well, Florian.

Unsurprising and not abnormal by Dan+East · 2011-03-23 05:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Never has an operating system had so many challenges to its intellectual property in such a short time period as the Google operating system has had in the last year.

That's because an operating system never gained such popularity in such a short time period*. I expect if the number of patent lawsuits were charted against the number of users, we'd see that the ratio for Android would be normal (or less) compared to other operating systems. It's just that typically these things are spread out over several years, which is how long the OS takes to really become popular.

* Yeah, I just made that up off the top of my head.

--
Better known as 318230.

Android is a threat by ilsaloving · 2011-03-23 05:20 · Score: 2

I can only guess that all these big companies see android as a big threat. And they're probably right. Android is vacuuming up the mobile and tablet markets, both of which are the biggest growing sectors right now. If the trend continues as it has been, then the current big players are going to find themselves locked out almost entirely unless they do something to stall Android's advance.

Re:Android is a threat by intheshelter · 2011-03-23 05:38 · Score: 1

Well, to be brutally honest, Android is leading the smartphone market and it is almost non-existent in the tablet market.
Re:Android is a threat by nicholas22 · 2011-03-23 08:16 · Score: 1

When you have no facts, all you have is beliefs.

I wish they would... by nitsew · 2011-03-23 05:22 · Score: 0

Shut down all of the law schools for 10 years. This is getting ridiculous.

Re:I wish they would... by AvitarX · 2011-03-23 06:31 · Score: 1

Lawyers would love it even more, imagine how much they could charge.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

"makers under pressure to address IP infringement" by jeffmeden · 2011-03-23 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Beg the question much? Are we really saying "they are infringing, now let's see how much it costs them"?

Android is a collection of almost entirely free software, born out of the best ideas that could be packed into a phone. It is disgusting to think that Apple has a claim for a patent on "touching a screen with more than one finger" or that Microsoft is the only one that is ever allowed to use "a specifically designated key that initiates a search function". These ideas are so blatantly obvious, and yet the IP system in the US is rolling over to credit anyone who patented any ridiculous thing, and award them huge settlements.

I dont know whether to be disgusted because this is basically only useful as a make-work project for lawyers and courts, or because it means that real innovation will need to happen outside the borders of the US if it's going to happen at all.

Google + Android vs. Handset Maker? by powerlord · 2011-03-23 05:27 · Score: 2

and that Google tends to ignore patent issues because Google itself is rarely sued: in most of these cases, Android device makers are under attack.

This is probably the single most important bit. Not whether it is correct or not, but for what is implied in the statement.

I imagine if a phone distributing Win-WOMPIT (Whatever Our Mobile Platform Is Today) gets sued, MicroSoft would probably be target #1, or at least an often named Co-Defendant. With the iPhone the manufacturer of the handset and OS are the same, and Apple has (and is/will) field these sort of things on its own.

With Android, if people are going after the Handset manufacturers independent of Google, then they might feel it opens them up to too much individual liability (wether or not it is true). If that happens, then no one will want to make Android devices, since they will just cost more in legal fees.

Maybe this is yet another reason for Google to buy out T-Mobile instead of AT&T. Let them take over a Cell Carrier, open up their air-waves, and provide a "foundation" to start actually making 'native' Android phones for their own network?

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.

Re:Google + Android vs. Handset Maker? by Elimental · 2011-03-23 06:53 · Score: 1

Or what can happen (heaven help Apple and Microsoft if it does) is when all this Android hardware manufacturers + Google pool their patent portfolio's and use that to fight back.
I seriously don't want only one phone in the market, Microsoft Desktop OS taught me that, we need at least 3 or 4 equally sized markets.

obligatory reference by king+neckbeard · 2011-03-23 05:29 · Score: 1

37 lawsuits have been filed against Android

In a row?

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:obligatory reference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:46 · Score: 0

Mod +1 Clerks Reference.
Or alternatively, Mod +1 An Adventurer Is You.
Re:obligatory reference by sp0tter · 2011-03-23 08:49 · Score: 1

try not to GET SUED OTW to the parking lot! HEY YOU GET BACK HERE!

--
you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy

IBM to buy Google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:32 · Score: 0

IBM should buy Google. Lack-of-Patents problem solved. IBM likes Linux, and Android is Linux, right? And IBM has been left out of the mobile race. So buy Google. Or merge. Or make a deal of some kind. Etc.

---
I type this every time.

Should have bought Sun... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:33 · Score: 0

Sun learned this lesson long time ago, number of patents == power, Google's portfolio is too weak. Having Sun's patents would be a different story.

That'll teach 'em by blair1q · 2011-03-23 05:33 · Score: 1

It doesn't pay to write free software that's any good.

Thanks, Patent Office!

Re:Android is a threat...really? by bogaboga · 2011-03-23 05:34 · Score: 2

Android is vacuuming up the mobile and tablet markets...

I think you know Android is not vaccuming up the tablet market...or is it? Where is the proof?

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:35 · Score: 0, Interesting

Funny how much people think Andriod is winning here like Charlie Sheen.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/iphone-os-still-dominates-mobile-web-android-on-the-way-up.ars

shows iOS still King...and andriod is still a long way off even with so many second ratr phone makers and fragmented store ....

much bias here?

FUD: Nothing to see here move along.. Move along by wizkid · 2011-03-23 05:38 · Score: 1

The patent trolls are taking over slashdot. Microsoft must be happy now. Sigh

--
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)

Why oh why are tech patents given for so long now? by rrossman2 · 2011-03-23 05:38 · Score: 1

I understand physical items, the time required to design and develop a physical, I can hold deal and the longer lengths of time required to develop.. but software? Plus there's more than one way to write code to obtain the same outcome.. Why aren't the terms shortened so progress and such can actually happen?!

Shhhhh quiet by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:41 · Score: 0

I smell nerds....

Goatse

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:46 · Score: 1

An article... from a year ago. Which just shows how fast Android rose to be top dog in the smartphone market.

FIX IT !!! by martiniturbide · 2011-03-23 05:52 · Score: 0

USA !! Fix the Patent System.. don't you geek are in charge there? ; )

Why doesn't Google buy Novell's patents? by arman0 · 2011-03-23 05:53 · Score: 1

CPTN Holdings-a Microsoft-led group that includes Apple, EMC, and Oracle is in the process of buying 882 of Novell’s patents. Given the recent patent-related legal action by MS and Oracle against Android/Google, why doesn't Google bid on Novell's patents? Wouldn't it put Google in a much better defensive position?

Re:Why doesn't Google buy Novell's patents? by kdsible · 2011-03-23 10:47 · Score: 0

you know they have the money. i still say they should have bought sun. one has to wonder what they were thinking or not thinking.

Re:Android is a threat...really? by wierd_w · 2011-03-23 05:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well...

Lets browse the tablet internet market for a second...

For IOS, we have Apple's iPad. Strategy Analytics says that:
IOS went from 95.5% market share of tablets in Q3 to 75.3% in Q4 2010.

Then we have "everyone else":
Android went from 2.3% in Q3 to 21.6% in Q4.
"all others" went from 2.3 in Q3 to 3.1 in Q4.

To me, this looks like android is spreading like wildfire in the tablet space. It snatched up more than 20% of market share in ONE QUARTER. While it is doubtful that growth like that is sustainable, even modest growth after a spurt like that could really put the screws to Apple.

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by JAlexoi · 2011-03-23 05:57 · Score: 1

Ah... So a year old article is very much appropriate... Good job!

That chart's a year old! by pem · 2011-03-23 05:58 · Score: 1

And ad views are notoriously tricky data in any case.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, and the fact is that in phones, Android is kicking some serious iOS butt at the moment.

Depressing for Softies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 05:59 · Score: 1

For the (how many are there, these days?) folks at Microsoft who actually do invention and implementation as opposed to managing various marketing, licensing and litigation schemes, this must be pretty embarrassing, sad-making. Can't seem to compete by getting useful and compelling products into the hands of consumers, so fight in the courts? Pathetic, really.

Hardware independance by mehrotra.akash · 2011-03-23 06:02 · Score: 1

Wouldnt this problem be bypassed by handset makers selling phones with a vary basic(featurephone like) custom OS. Let the community develop Android for specific models, but make the phone hardware in such a way that it is easy for the community to develop for and customise.Then users can install Android on their own. Provide a backup ROM like some GPU makers provide to prevent bricking.

Somewhat like selling laptops without an OS

Re:Hardware independance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 20:35 · Score: 0

Wouldnt this problem be bypassed by handset makers selling phones with a vary basic(featurephone like) custom OS. Let the community develop Android for specific models, but make the phone hardware in such a way that it is easy for the community to develop for and customise.Then users can install Android on their own. Provide a backup ROM like some GPU makers provide to prevent bricking.
Somewhat like selling laptops without an OS
Well, it might have been, but someone has probably rushed out and patented that idea in the time since you posted your comment.

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by JAlexoi · 2011-03-23 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

You know what's infuriating for me? As a citizen and resident of a country where software patents are explicitly forbidden, I still end up paying for those software patents...
It's OK if the product was designed, manufactured in US or the company is American. But why do I have to pay for the software patents on devices that are neither targeted at US, not manufactured in US and the company is not based in US? All HTC Android devices have the license fee for those software patents included and forwarded to MS. That is the fucking loophole that I hate.
Basically that is one of the imperialistic features of current US. Reminds me of stamp tax...

ATTN: Microsoft Trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:14 · Score: 0

I like how pro-microsoft people come on here all like "see gaize, microsoft not evil, microsoft good... microsoft like open source! FIRE BAD! GOOGLE BAD! GOOGLE EVIL! hnngggrrrrrrrrrrrrr..." ...and yet they are strangely silent when instnces like this come up. Truly fascinating.

(and too be sure, Google is a for-profit money driven entity, and all of their actions should be thoroughly examined and questioned, but generally Googles hands are cleaner than Microsoft and Oracle. Nevertheless...)

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by TheEyes · 2011-03-23 06:23 · Score: 1

Funny how much people think Andriod is winning here like Charlie Sheen.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/iphone-os-still-dominates-mobile-web-android-on-the-way-up.ars

shows iOS still King...and andriod is still a long way off even with so many second ratr phone makers and fragmented store ....

much bias here?

Here's an update from the same website:

Android tops everyone in 2010 market share; 2011 may be different

OH NO!!! Let's run and hide under a rock! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 06:36 · Score: 0

OH NO!!! CLEARLY we should abandon the Android platform. What were we thinking? I guess we should ignore its benefits and open architecture and open marketplace in favor one that removes apps because people don't like their anti-gay message.
Get real folks. Android has taken market share for a reason in its lifespan that is half of its competitor's.

Re:Android is a threat...really? by powerlord · 2011-03-23 06:39 · Score: 1

To me, this looks like android is spreading like wildfire in the tablet space. It snatched up more than 20% of market share in ONE QUARTER. While it is doubtful that growth like that is sustainable, even modest growth after a spurt like that could really put the screws to Apple.

You're kidding right?

There wasn't really a tablet market of measurable size until the iPad.

The growth of Android in Q4 is other manufacturers getting into the game and offering alternatives (a good thing for the consumer).

I'm actually more surprised that Apple has managed to hold onto ~75% of the Tablet market. If Apple can hold onto 60%-70% of the market, then they are doing Just Fine and have nothing to complain about as the market grows and heads toward saturation (at some point in the future).

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.

Re:Why oh why are tech patents given for so long n by yurtinus · 2011-03-23 06:55 · Score: 1

It's not so much the term lengths - software can have just as long a development time as hardware as well as decent longevity (compare say the age of your favorite text editor with the age of your cell phone...). The problem is the abundance of pretty obvious innovations that get patented coupled with potentially huge consequences for infringement.

--
+1 Disagree

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 07:00 · Score: 0

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/iphone-os-still-dominates-mobile-web-android-on-the-way-up.ars

shows iOS still King...and andriod is still a long way off even with so many second ratr phone makers and fragmented store ....

Perhaps that may still be the case now, but answer me this...
If you look at those two line charts and pretend that each platform's line represents its stock value, which one would you invest in for the future?

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by jeffmeden · 2011-03-23 07:01 · Score: 1

That's more of a question of how effective is it to make a "US-only" device and an "Everyone Else" device. HTC could very well make a phone using just the open sourced version of Android, thank Google with a nicely worded letter and nothing more (instead of being a premiere partner in AOSP, OHSA, etc. and paying activation fees to Google for every handset) but what would be the point? Do you really want an Android replica with no actual ties to Google? No app market? No one-stop activation?

Creating a Perfect Moment to Strike by IBitOBear · 2011-03-23 07:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

It occurs to me that Google is approaching a perfect moment to strike against software patents utterly. Having very few of their own and having a clearly innovative product that is much in demand, they are in the perfect position to show that software patents are harmful to innovation "even for a large company like us.'

Were they to now begin, in each of these cases, a concerted affirmative defense that software, when executing on a "general purpose computer" can not possibly be in violation of any patent.

The argument would have to be two-fold:

First, one can not make a "specific machine" out of a "general machine" by adding functionality. Just as putting a single copy of Moby Dick on a book shelf (or indeed filling a bookshelf with copies of Mobey Dick) does not divest the bookshelf of its bookshelf-ness and convert it into a "Mobey Dick location structural support machine", putting software on a PC or a phone doesn't reduce the nature of the PC or phone to convert it into a "specific machine".

Second, the demonstration of excessive burden and harm that can be brought to bear on a individual device, and makers there of, when the "specific machine" theory is applied as is, given that the one "specific machine" is getting sued 37 times for more than one patent per time, because the individual android device(s) are apparently being forced into a quantum superposition [<==turn that into lawyer speech] where they are each individually transformed by software int dozens or hundreds of individual specific machines.

The very fact that in each law suit the patent needs must read "what is described" is "a machine where" and yet it is sure as rain that the individual pantents don't reference one another in scope. (That is, two patents on say a automobile brake system can be inclusive of one another if one is for say, an actuator and the other is for a caliper, since both will mention the existence of the others collateral components; whereas a "web status update specific machine" would be exclusive of a "local document indexing specific machine").

The fact that in each case Google can reference the other cases as demonstration of cumulative harm caused by the current misinterpration of the precident would give them perfect grounds to argue before the court(s) that software simply cannot rationally or legally be patent material, particularly under the "promote the useful arts and sciences clause".

The ultimate goal would be to get a ruling that software running on, or that can run on, a general purpose computer can not, by definition, be in violation of any patent. Barring that, getting software classified the same as 'perpetual motion machines' as a 'we don't do that' clause of all patent law whoudl be just as ideal.

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

Re:Creating a Perfect Moment to Strike by naasking · 2011-03-23 10:25 · Score: 2

First, one can not make a "specific machine" out of a "general machine" by adding functionality.
There is already established precedent that says you're wrong on this point. You're better off arguing that software and math are synonymous, and since the latter is unpatentable we have a contradiction: either certain types of math should be patentable subject to criteria X, or software is inherently unpatentable. Either outcome would be acceptable, because it would at least require someone to very specifically define *what types of math* are patentable, and we could stop living in constant fear of being sued for having an idea.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.

Re:Why oh why are tech patents given for so long n by msclrhd · 2011-03-23 07:19 · Score: 1

Exactly. 12-15 years is too long in the software world (think Windows 95 vs. Windows 7).

Patents are supposed to help benefit society by having inventors document their invention and getting a limited time exclusivity right for it. There is no reason why this cannot be true for software, but limited to 2-3 years (e.g. multi-touch).

(obligatory?) Clerks Reference by sorak · 2011-03-23 07:38 · Score: 1

37?!?

Try not to get sued on the way to the parking lot...

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 07:43 · Score: 0

"real innovation will need to happen outside the borders of the US if it's going to happen at all."

Guess what with Detroit down to a lower population level than 1910 and venture capital drying up and heading off shore like never before, this has already happened. One of the reasons for this is the Patent Office and how things have changed. Once upon a time in America patents meant something, now they are driving companies elsewhere. If this does not change and soon then the economy of the United States is in serious jeopardy. A country that once thrived on innovation has been decimated by it's own stupidity and the litigious nonsense that is happening in high tech because of the patent law changes brought about to satisfy companies like Microsoft that in reality create nothing other than software.

Re:Android is a threat...really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 07:43 · Score: 0

+1 for you sir! It's like saying Nintendo had 99% of the motion control videogame market until kinect and move came along. Later around September-ish Microsoft will be joining the tablet game too so the playing field so we can't really tell much until that happens since there will be quite a few competitors at that time.

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 07:59 · Score: 0

You were not only owned, but pwned.

Re:Android is a threat...really? by nicholas22 · 2011-03-23 08:15 · Score: 1

Uhm no they're not doing "Just Fine" just like Microsoft is not doing Just Fine holding a much larger percentage, because the flood gates have opened. Actually it is very surprising how Apple managed to lose so much of its market share, when indeed it pioneered the *adoption* (as opposed to the inception of the table market, which is how fans would have you believe).

Re:Android is a threat...really? by brkello · 2011-03-23 08:20 · Score: 1

At any point, that big of a jump is significant. There isn't really too many Android table options at the moment and one of the main ones hasn't released its wi-fi only version. There was a tablet PC market before Apple. Apple just made it trendy. To cut in to it that much in one quarter is pretty nuts. If you held a business where you pretty much owned the market and some guy came in and took 20% of your customers in 1 quarter and you weren't concerned, you would be one terrible CEO.

--
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by brkello · 2011-03-23 08:21 · Score: 1

Why can't we sue the patent office?

--
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com

Re:Android is a threat...really? by 517714 · 2011-03-23 09:59 · Score: 2

Apple and Android Shipments

3Q 4.2M 4Q 7.3M iPad

3Q 0.1M 4Q 2.1M Android

Apple increased shipments by 3.1 million and Android only 2 million therefore Apple's market is increasing 55% faster than Android's. Android is doomed!./sarcasm Four data points is not enough to draw much of a conclusion. These are shipments, not sales to end customers, and Apple probably sold only 6M using that measure, and Android under a million. Android is doing very well, it may be able to get 40% share this year.

You are deluded if would use terrible to describe a CEO who increased sales by 74% from one quarter to the next. Android hasn't really taken any of Apple's market share, because the market is too new and unstable for market share to be a useful measure. Lastly, it wasn't some guy, it was Samsung.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.

37, huh? by NotPeteMcCabe · 2011-03-23 10:05 · Score: 1

They couldn't have made it 1337?

Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:11 · Score: 0

Yes, well we pay for the world's innovation on prescription drugs so I think we're even.

Seriously, I find it irritating how the patent office blindly accepts software patents because they're inept or lazy and won't find prior art. Companies buy patents because they have to. It's a monopoly the government has on stopping innovation.

Patently absurd by Eth1csGrad1ent · 2011-03-23 15:03 · Score: 1

The whole industry is fucked up and has been for a very, very, long time. Given the number of countries and the number of players with a vested interest, the only way we'll see reform is from a total collapse of the patent and copyright systems like we're already seeing with music and movies.

I, for one, would LOVE to know how much money the top 50 IT companies in the world have SWAPPED over patent and copyright lawsuits in the last 20 years - I'm quite sure the figure would be mind blowing for mere mortals.

Re:Android is a threat...really? by wrook · 2011-03-23 16:10 · Score: 1

Of interest to me is where the demand is. I live in Japan and I've started to see Galaxy Tabs everywhere (there are even 3 here in the school staff room as I speak). I've yet to see anyone with an iPad. I suspect this is because Docomo and AU are *really* pushing Android (and working very hard at establishing "Android" as a viable brank) and Softbank is the only telecom vendor pushing iOS devices. And while iPods are quite popular here, it doesn't seem to be translating to iPad success. I suspect this is because (at least from my point of view) the place people are going for tablets is the telecoms (they see it as a portable internet device rather than a general computing device).

Granted, I live out in the boonies. Popularity of such things is often different in the big cities. Still, I find it very interesting. I suspect that the dynamics here are very different than in the US. Apple has to be very careful not to concentrate on the US and end up with what is essentially a niche market compared to the rest of the world.

Article contradictory re: should Google patent by divec · 2011-03-23 21:05 · Score: 1

Florian contradicts himself in the article:

Google's own patent portfolio is [...] far too weak for what's undertaken in connection with Android.
[...]
Just today, Google was granted a typical "troll" patent ... A company that seeks to monopolize such basic ideas -- behind which there really isn't any serious technology -- apparenty loves patents

He can't have it both ways -- either he wants Google to file defensive patents or he doesn't. A patent isn't a troll, a patent aggressor is a troll. If you just use a patent defensively you're not a patent troll.

He also seeks to draw an arbitrary distinction between "trivial" and "non-trivial" patents. The problem with patents is not triviality. The problem is that they can hit you even if you thought of the idea independently, or if you're just trying to conform to a de-facto standard.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

wisdom from Van Halen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:37 · Score: 0

This brings to mind a quote I once heard from (former Van Halen frontman) David Lee Roth: When asked how you know when you've "made it," Roth responded: "When you can spell 'subpoena' without thinking about it." The abundance of copyright and patent litigation volleyed against Android is testimony to its success. Time will tell whether or not it will be able to survive the onslaught.

154 comments