Slashdot Mirror


37 Android Patent Lawsuits

An anonymous reader writes "37 lawsuits have been filed against Android in a little more than a year, the latest one of them being Microsoft's lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec. ReadWriteWeb says 'the number of patent lawsuits related to the Android operating system is unprecedented' and shows an infographic that is also available on Twitpic and as a PDF file, on Scribd. The first two suits were filed in March 2010 by Apple and MobileMedia against HTC. The original source of the chart, the FOSS Patents blog, says that Android's market share is only one factor, other reasons being that Google's patent portfolio is 'far too weak for what's undertaken in connection with Android'; that Google doesn't do 'inbound licensing' from trolls; 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."

38 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Scare tactics by nicholas22 · · 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.

    1. Re:Scare tactics by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they're trying to litigate themselves a piece of a very lucrative pie.

    2. Re:Scare tactics by Anne+Thwacks · · 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
    3. Re:Scare tactics by alvinrod · · 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.

    4. Re:Scare tactics by poetmatt · · 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.

    5. Re:Scare tactics by poetmatt · · 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?

    6. Re:Scare tactics by jrumney · · 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.

    7. Re:Scare tactics by Skal+Tura · · 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

  2. 37 in one year? by cyberfin · · 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
    1. Re:37 in one year? by MickyTheIdiot · · 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.

  3. Re:Bad news for Google by WrongSizeGlass · · 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!'.

  4. Florian by MikeKD · · Score: 5, Informative

    More crap from Florian Mueller?

    Yes.

  5. Yet more FUD by messagelost · · 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.

    1. Re:Yet more FUD by thestudio_bob · · 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 /.
    2. Re:Yet more FUD by hey! · · 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.
    3. Re:Yet more FUD by messagelost · · 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.

    4. Re:Yet more FUD by hairyfeet · · 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.
    5. Re:Yet more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Yet more FUD by lorenlal · · 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.

    7. Re:Yet more FUD by burnin1965 · · 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.

  6. Poor Graph, D+ at best by rufty_tufty · · 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" -
  7. Unsurprising and not abnormal by Dan+East · · 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.
  8. Android is a threat by ilsaloving · · 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.

  9. "makers under pressure to address IP infringement" by jeffmeden · · 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.

  10. Google + Android vs. Handset Maker? by powerlord · · 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.
  11. Re:Android is a threat...really? by bogaboga · · 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?

  12. Re:Bad news for Google by MikeDirnt69 · · 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
  13. Re:Legalese into obvlivion? by MickyTheIdiot · · 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.

  14. Re:Bad news for Google by Austerity+Empowers · · 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?

  15. Re:Android is a threat...really? by wierd_w · · 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.

  16. Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme by JAlexoi · · 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...

  17. Re:Bad news for Google by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  18. Re:Legalese into obvlivion? by AvitarX · · 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
  19. Creating a Perfect Moment to Strike by IBitOBear · · 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
    1. Re:Creating a Perfect Moment to Strike by naasking · · 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.

  20. Re:Bad news for Google by rtfa-troll · · 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();
  21. Re:Android is a threat...really? by 517714 · · 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.
  22. Re:Bad news for Google by Anonymous Coward · · 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.