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."
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.
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
More crap from Florian Mueller?
Yes.
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.
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" -
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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
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();