We've discussed the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung cases a lot in this class, and also talked about the March 1 ruling by Judge Lucy Koh to award Apple a ~$600 million damages award for the design infringement on Samsung's Infuse 4G and Galaxy S II At&T, a nice sum to be sure but still $450 million short of the $1.05 billion they originally asked for. Now, Apple is asking for $85 million more than what they were originally awarded.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/apple-alleges-85-million-error-in.html
Apple is referring to this $85 million as an "error" in the damages calculations. They are justifying these claims with a lot of legalese details that can be found in the article above.
But of course, all they're really trying to do is get the most bang for their buck. I don't blame them; if you're putting so much effort into a high-profile case like this, it makes sense to want to take as much as you can get from it, and clearly they think they might be able to get $85 million more.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
Post 17 - Open Source Patents
I was glad to read in a recent article that many companies have made promises not to assert select patents against Open Source Software that uses them. These companies have included IBM, Sun Microsystems, Computer Associates, and now more recently Google as well. I applaud this move and I think it's great that these companies recognize the importance of Open Source projects, and are slightly reducing the amount of worrying they have to do over patents.
However, it turns out that in many cases, this may have just been a publicity stunt. For example, although IBM pledged 500 patents for open use by Open Source software, this represents only about 1% of their patent portfolio. And Google only pledged 10 out of their 17,000+ patents!
Article here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/googles-promise-not-to-assert-10.html
I think these patent "pledges" are a great step in the right direction, but these companies need to do far more than this to actually make an impact. Nonprofit and Open Source projects should not be victim to the same sort of patent litigation that we have been talking so much about in this class.
However, it turns out that in many cases, this may have just been a publicity stunt. For example, although IBM pledged 500 patents for open use by Open Source software, this represents only about 1% of their patent portfolio. And Google only pledged 10 out of their 17,000+ patents!
Article here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/googles-promise-not-to-assert-10.html
I think these patent "pledges" are a great step in the right direction, but these companies need to do far more than this to actually make an impact. Nonprofit and Open Source projects should not be victim to the same sort of patent litigation that we have been talking so much about in this class.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Post 16 - Google's Motorola acquisition is increasingly starting to seem like a mistake
As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems that Google has been out of luck recently in the patent courtrooms.
They have lost yet another case to Microsoft, concerning a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device". Of course, this refers to Microsoft's Xbox Kinect system, which Google believes infringes the patent. More information here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-loses-another-one-to-microsoft.html
Even without going into detail about the patent, the ruling doesn't surprise me because Kinect is not a mobile or "portable" device. Additionally, although the ideas are similar, I'm willing to bet that the technologies are quite different.
This case is significant because like others before it, it displays that Google's acquisition of Motorola may have not been as great of a choice as they thought. The $12.5 billion acquisition gave them a large patent portfolio, but unfortunately Google simply hasn't been able to win many cases using those patents.
Additionally, other companies may realize that Google isn't as big of a threat as they thought. Microsoft, for example, hasn't been getting much press coverage in terms of patent litigation because its overwhelming strategy has been to license its patents out for a fee. However, Microsoft is definitely a very powerful player. Google's Android infringes on several of Microsoft's patents, and they were probably hoping that they could get away with this for free as part of a deal if they could prove that Microsoft is also infringing on their / Motorola's patents. However, as they continue to lose these cases, Microsoft will soon come after them for licensing royalties, and perhaps a lawsuit.
They have lost yet another case to Microsoft, concerning a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device". Of course, this refers to Microsoft's Xbox Kinect system, which Google believes infringes the patent. More information here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-loses-another-one-to-microsoft.html
Even without going into detail about the patent, the ruling doesn't surprise me because Kinect is not a mobile or "portable" device. Additionally, although the ideas are similar, I'm willing to bet that the technologies are quite different.
This case is significant because like others before it, it displays that Google's acquisition of Motorola may have not been as great of a choice as they thought. The $12.5 billion acquisition gave them a large patent portfolio, but unfortunately Google simply hasn't been able to win many cases using those patents.
Additionally, other companies may realize that Google isn't as big of a threat as they thought. Microsoft, for example, hasn't been getting much press coverage in terms of patent litigation because its overwhelming strategy has been to license its patents out for a fee. However, Microsoft is definitely a very powerful player. Google's Android infringes on several of Microsoft's patents, and they were probably hoping that they could get away with this for free as part of a deal if they could prove that Microsoft is also infringing on their / Motorola's patents. However, as they continue to lose these cases, Microsoft will soon come after them for licensing royalties, and perhaps a lawsuit.
Post 15 - Tethering is a 12-year old idea
Google has just not had much luck lately in the patent courtrooms.
It turns out that the tethering feature on an android violated a Nokia patent that is more than 10 years old. "Tethering" is when you use a smartphone's cellular internet connection to create a wifi hotspot for a laptop or other internet-capable device, enabling it to browse the web through your phone's data connection. It's kind of mind-boggling for me that Nokia came up with an idea like this in 1995, when the internet itself had still not entered common knowledge.
Here is the article in question:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/android-likely-infringes-nokia-patent.html
Of course, in 1995 they probably didn't imagine that their patent would be used for tethering (they probably thought talking voices would go through the computer or something). Also, in their picture the phone is connected to the computer through a wire; maybe they thought that cell phones would be our main source of wireless internet? But regardless, here we are today with a patent violation.
It is interesting to think that although Nokia has declined a little in terms of market share, its patents from back when it was the top dog are still proving useful and generating revenue today. I wonder what cool patents are being invented today that won't come to fruition for another decade.
It turns out that the tethering feature on an android violated a Nokia patent that is more than 10 years old. "Tethering" is when you use a smartphone's cellular internet connection to create a wifi hotspot for a laptop or other internet-capable device, enabling it to browse the web through your phone's data connection. It's kind of mind-boggling for me that Nokia came up with an idea like this in 1995, when the internet itself had still not entered common knowledge.
Here is the article in question:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/android-likely-infringes-nokia-patent.html
Of course, in 1995 they probably didn't imagine that their patent would be used for tethering (they probably thought talking voices would go through the computer or something). Also, in their picture the phone is connected to the computer through a wire; maybe they thought that cell phones would be our main source of wireless internet? But regardless, here we are today with a patent violation.
It is interesting to think that although Nokia has declined a little in terms of market share, its patents from back when it was the top dog are still proving useful and generating revenue today. I wonder what cool patents are being invented today that won't come to fruition for another decade.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Post 14 - Google tries to ban iPhone
http://www.foss
It seems that Google is trying really hard to get
the iPhone banned in the US, even quoting a dead guy that can't testify
in court. If this does successfully win Google the patent, I wonder what
precedents that will set for future lawsuits in the same vein.
Post 13 - Judge denies additional Ericsson claims
In yet another example of a Judge simplifying a patent litigation trial, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw denied Ericsson's attempt to add 15 claims to their existing 130 against Samsung.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/samsung-succeeds-in-blocking-ericssons.html
Last week I also discussed that I thought judges were beginning to get frustrated with the overwhelming amount of patent litigation in the ITC, and "fighting" against it by denying frivolous claims and attempting to make the cases as simple as possible.
I believe that this is another one of those examples. In a situation where the extra 15 claims may have been legitimate, but the judge had a perfectly legitimate reason not to include them, he decided to lean towards the option that simplifies the case.
I think that this is deliberate behavior to attempt to discourage patent litigation and reduce the workload of these judges. These types of things have been coming up increasingly often, and I discussed it last week as well. It may be kind of a stretch, and of course it would be hard to prove that this was really true, but I do believe that it at least plays a part in their decisions.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/samsung-succeeds-in-blocking-ericssons.html
Last week I also discussed that I thought judges were beginning to get frustrated with the overwhelming amount of patent litigation in the ITC, and "fighting" against it by denying frivolous claims and attempting to make the cases as simple as possible.
I believe that this is another one of those examples. In a situation where the extra 15 claims may have been legitimate, but the judge had a perfectly legitimate reason not to include them, he decided to lean towards the option that simplifies the case.
I think that this is deliberate behavior to attempt to discourage patent litigation and reduce the workload of these judges. These types of things have been coming up increasingly often, and I discussed it last week as well. It may be kind of a stretch, and of course it would be hard to prove that this was really true, but I do believe that it at least plays a part in their decisions.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Post 12 - Nokia vs HTC
With all the recent press about the ongoing Samsung v apple patent war, it seems like another large battle has slipped through the cracks: Nokia vs. HTC.
In general, it seems that Nokia has asserted 31 of its patents against HTC. Today, the Mannheim Regional Court dismissed two of those cases, while the other 29 are still being carried out.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/german-court-dismisses-two-nokia-patent.html
The interesting part is to look at the 2 patents that were dismissed, and to think about why it happened. One of them was about Google Play, formerly known as the "Android Market". Nokia owns patent EP0812120 on a "method for using services offered by a telecommunications network, a telecommunications system and a terminal for it." It is asserting this patent against ViewSonic as well, not just HTC. The second patent concerned a light guide system that uses light sensors to measure the brightness of the phone's environment, and adjust the screen's brightness appropriately.
What these two patents have in common is that I could see both of them going either way. HTC does have a light guide, but it is just a hole that doesn't actually "guide" the light. Thus the case seems kind of neutral - HTC did steal the idea, but they didn't infringe on the patent per say.
Same goes for Google Play: HTC did indeed copy the Google Play idea, but the court decided that Nokia's patents refer to 1990s technology and therefore aren't relevant to modern mobile Internet devices.
Since both of these cases seem pretty even and I could see either of them going either way, it is interesting to see that the court took the defensive on both and ruled against Nokia. To me, it seems that judges are doing their best to discourage litigation like this, which I don't blame them for given the ridiculous amount of patent wars going on right now. When the case is close, the judges simply dismiss it, hoping that future companies will predict this behavior and not file litigation in the first place.
I don't mean to trivialize the jobs of the judges of course, nor do I intend to imply that they are making unfair calls. But in their situation, I would do the same thing. All this patent litigation is hurting innovation, and costing the judiciary system much time and money. I think they should do their best to discourage it as much as possible.
Post 11 - Google Maps in danger in Germany
One of the most important patent infringement trials in today's smartphone wars is happening today in Germany, with Microsoft prosecuting Google for its infringement of a "computer system for identifying local resources and method therefor", which the Google Maps app violates.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-about-to-lose-patent-spat-with.html
The trial has been labeled the "climax to date in the so-called smartphone wars", and its implications are huge: Google and Motorola may have to discontinue their Google Maps mobile service in Germany if Microsoft wins, and Microsoft is indeed favored to win the case against Google.
Interestingly, companies such as HTC, Samsung, and LG who use the Android operating system, had previously recognized Microsoft's patents over the technology and sought license agreements, which Microsoft has accepted (this has been Microsoft's strategy throughout most of the ongoing patent wars, in stark contrast to Apple). This in and of itself indicates that Google is probably on the losing end of this battle.
Another interesting facet of this is that Microsoft initially asserted litigation over Motorola for this patent. In response, Motorola claimed they had no knowledge of how Google's servers operate, and therefore could not be held liable to the infringement. However, once Google acquired Motorola, Microsoft adjusted its claim to target Google instead, and Motorola's previous defense obviously no longer stands.
The irony of this is that Google acquired Motorola largely for its patents, and became a big player in the patent wars (especially against Apple) right after it acquired Motorola. Therefore it's ironic that in this particular case, acquiring Motorola probably made them lose.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-about-to-lose-patent-spat-with.html
The trial has been labeled the "climax to date in the so-called smartphone wars", and its implications are huge: Google and Motorola may have to discontinue their Google Maps mobile service in Germany if Microsoft wins, and Microsoft is indeed favored to win the case against Google.
Interestingly, companies such as HTC, Samsung, and LG who use the Android operating system, had previously recognized Microsoft's patents over the technology and sought license agreements, which Microsoft has accepted (this has been Microsoft's strategy throughout most of the ongoing patent wars, in stark contrast to Apple). This in and of itself indicates that Google is probably on the losing end of this battle.
Another interesting facet of this is that Microsoft initially asserted litigation over Motorola for this patent. In response, Motorola claimed they had no knowledge of how Google's servers operate, and therefore could not be held liable to the infringement. However, once Google acquired Motorola, Microsoft adjusted its claim to target Google instead, and Motorola's previous defense obviously no longer stands.
The irony of this is that Google acquired Motorola largely for its patents, and became a big player in the patent wars (especially against Apple) right after it acquired Motorola. Therefore it's ironic that in this particular case, acquiring Motorola probably made them lose.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Post 10 - Smartphone Guitar
As I mentioned in my previous blog post, this week I'll be examining the innovation and technological aspect of patent engineering rather than the litigation and monetary aspects of them. I think this is fitting due to the new direction that our class is now headed in.
Here's another cool patent that was filed this week, by Samsung: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/20/samsung-patent-describes-guitar_n_2724250.html
The patent pretty much describes a mobile device similar to a smartphone that could also double as a guitar. Sensors, buttons, and touch-screens on the device perceive how and where you are moving it to produce guitar-like notes.
I don't actually think that this could go on to great success, because it sounds like something that lies between a gimick and the real thing. For people who want a gimick, a simple iOS or Android app might suffice, whereas those who want the real deal would probably prefer to just buy a real guitar. Nevertheless, as a guitar player myself this does indeed look awesome, and it would be cool if it became a reality.
But all of this drives me to think, why would Samsung bother to patent this? Clearly they think that this patent could have some real value looking into the future. Or perhaps they are simply being overly cautious due to their current litigation with Apple. Either way, it will be interesting to see where this goes.
Here's another cool patent that was filed this week, by Samsung: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/20/samsung-patent-describes-guitar_n_2724250.html
The patent pretty much describes a mobile device similar to a smartphone that could also double as a guitar. Sensors, buttons, and touch-screens on the device perceive how and where you are moving it to produce guitar-like notes.
I don't actually think that this could go on to great success, because it sounds like something that lies between a gimick and the real thing. For people who want a gimick, a simple iOS or Android app might suffice, whereas those who want the real deal would probably prefer to just buy a real guitar. Nevertheless, as a guitar player myself this does indeed look awesome, and it would be cool if it became a reality.
But all of this drives me to think, why would Samsung bother to patent this? Clearly they think that this patent could have some real value looking into the future. Or perhaps they are simply being overly cautious due to their current litigation with Apple. Either way, it will be interesting to see where this goes.
Post 9 - Germ-Proof Screen
Now that we've begun discussing the actual construction of patents in class, rather than the litigation and monetary aspects of them, I think my blog posts should reflect that as well. After all, I took this class because I am excited by the technological innovation that patents provide, not how much money I can make from suing other people over them.
That said, here's a cool patent that Microsoft just filed: http://www.mobilemag.com/2013/02/22/microsoft-germ-patent/
It's essentially an aspect of a touch-screen (such as on a smartphone or table) that would automatically kill germs on the surface by radiating them with UV light over certain intervals. It is designed to be minimally invasive to the user of the tablet, blocking the UV radiation outside the screen.
I think that this is a great example of innovation and forward thinking, and using patents to protect those ideas. Especially coming from Microsoft, a company that has come under recent criticism for lack of innovation. But with ideas like this, they may be ready to jump back into the game.
If Microsoft implements this I think it could be a good selling point for all those germ freaks out there, and may act as a tie-breaker feature among people choosing among mobile or tablet devices. Perhaps Purell should start worrying...
That said, here's a cool patent that Microsoft just filed: http://www.mobilemag.com/2013/02/22/microsoft-germ-patent/
It's essentially an aspect of a touch-screen (such as on a smartphone or table) that would automatically kill germs on the surface by radiating them with UV light over certain intervals. It is designed to be minimally invasive to the user of the tablet, blocking the UV radiation outside the screen.
I think that this is a great example of innovation and forward thinking, and using patents to protect those ideas. Especially coming from Microsoft, a company that has come under recent criticism for lack of innovation. But with ideas like this, they may be ready to jump back into the game.
If Microsoft implements this I think it could be a good selling point for all those germ freaks out there, and may act as a tie-breaker feature among people choosing among mobile or tablet devices. Perhaps Purell should start worrying...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)