decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Google and independence | 117 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
1013 words - New line, carriage return
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:00 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Zealand may prohibit software patents
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:07 AM EDT
They should have a quick look at Slashdot too. They have an article about New Zealand prohibiting software patents.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Compulsory Licensing? So? Isn't that what Microsoft seeks from Motorola?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:13 AM EDT
At this point, it is very hard not to infer that Nokia is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Microsoft, with the sole purpose of acting as Microsoft puppets
trying to destroy Microsoft's competition in a self-destructive manner.


And amici, who might not have standing, are doing an outstanding public service
here. Yoohoo, FTC, Barak, are you listening? This is not the spring you
promised us!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:19 AM EDT
Post correction in title please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google, Red Hat, HTC, SAP and Rackspace Seek to File Amicus in Apple v. Samsung Appeal ~ pj
Authored by: cassini2006 on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:20 AM EDT
Nokia could have used the free Android operating system, of course, without having to buy any company, and offer the lower-end market a cheap but real smartphone, but nooooo. I hope some regulator somewhere is reading the Nokia/Microsoft agreement to see if Nokia had to promise to never use Linux in any phone, even if it made business sense for the company.

I think Nokia did promise to drop Linux and Android work when they signed with Microsoft. It was a term in the contract. I recall reading about reports of this at the time.

Does anyone have a reference?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:20 AM EDT
Discuss them here. Please use links.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:21 AM EDT
On topic posters will be forced to buy a Nokia phone and use it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:22 AM EDT
Goeth here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My family no longer buys Nokia phones, we used to buy them.
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 10:44 AM EDT
My wide loved Nokia phones. Here first phone was a Nokia, it
lasted her 6 years. She kept buying Nokia and we as a family
tended to buy Nokia because they were well made. My wife and
I tend to buy feature phones because we mainly use them to
talk to people so they fit our needs.
But after I explained what was going on with Nokia we mad a
family decision not to buy them anymore. We have a Linux
network at our house. All of the computers run Linux and so
any attack on open source is an attack on our freedom.
A month or so ago I bought my wife a replacement phone to
replace her Nokia flip phone. It was on its last legs. The
battery didnt hold a charge, the bezel around the screen was
loose, the 0 button was starting not to work, and half the
buttons no longer were backlit.
We picked out a Samsung flip phone for her and while it has
a low speaker volume when in speaker phone mode she is
overall happy with it. The large number display and long
battery life have her happy again.
Nokia may not know about us, but I bet there are others who
no longer buy from them because of what they are doing. I
hope that the company gets rid of the people leading them to
attack and not to innovate.

As for the other operating system . I see no problem with
them buying the company and not using Android. That was a
choice they were free to make and probably made sense to the
people running the company at the time. You have to
differentiate yourself in the marketplace in some way.
Perhaps they thought it would be a way to do so. I would be
happier to see them go that rout than partnering with
Microsoft. Microsoft has a poison touch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google, Red Hat, HTC, SAP and Rackspace Seek to File Amicus in Apple v. Samsung Appeal ~ pj
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 12:09 PM EDT
But... but... I hear some say, what about the loss of money invested in those US patents, the ones already issued?
It is losses against losses. We have to look at both sides of this equation.

How about the operating companies which can't be assured to own all rights to their market offerings because of this patent madness? They lose a lot isn't it? Why would some people investing in software patents should be a reason to force everyone else to suffer these losses?

We need to talk more about the inability of operating companies to clear all rights to their own products and services. The patent debate is framed by patent proponents as a property debate. But the only property they discuss are patents. They forget the ownership of goods and services. Patents are a system allowing third parties to come and claim ownership over parts of the goods and services of operating companies. Since software patents rights cannot be cleared beforehand, operating companies can't fully own what they offer to the market.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google and independence
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 04:16 PM EDT
It's hard to see how Google, authors of Android, can file a
friend-of-the-Court brief.

Having Samsung use Android is vey clearly to Google's benefit. If Google
wants to file then it should join Samsung's suit.

Amicus briefs from RedHat and HTC are fine as they have some interests
in common but are not direct beneficiaries.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software is an important factor in drug patents.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 08:05 PM EDT
Software is an important factor in drug patents, because
software modeling is such an important part of drug
effectiveness evaluation. It is a big time saver, and can
give a drug company a big advantage. Early on,this was done
in machine code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dear Amici
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 07:17 AM EDT
If the feature is trivial and patented by someone else, leave it out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google bias
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 09:23 AM EDT
When I say that Groklaw has a pro-Google bias I get told that's not the case.
So why are you vexed that Nokia used Asha not Android? Because they paid for
it? Choice is good, Nokia should be applauded for using a different OS. Some
of us think Android is over-engineered and lacking in a number of fundamental
areas (security, for example), so a different option is a good thing. If you
support innovation you should support more phone OSs, not fewer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Google bias - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 11:24 AM EDT
    • Google bias - Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 11:57 AM EDT
  • Google bias - Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Nokia is not an "impartial friend of the court"
Authored by: HappyDude on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 08:29 AM EDT
It reads like Nokia got permission to file with the court,
and they're certainly vested in this battle. How could
Google possibly be denied permission based on that

If they are denied, I will lose every remaining ounce of
respect I've managed to hold onto. Our legal system is
becoming a joke and this judge is laughable. I'm an ignorant
son-of-a-gun, but this whole thing seems so wrong to me. Why
proceed with any part of the trial if it's even remotely
possible that the patents will be (and they probably will
be) finally invalidated? What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
and it's all in support of stupid software patents.

Speaking of which, I have an ignorant question about
software patents.

I gather that patents are supposed to be innovative and not
obvious to those skilled, they're also supposed to reveal
the explicit design so people like me could implement, and
they're not supposed to do things that are already done ...
like math equations.

Yet, software is collaborative. It's like building blocks
that any software engineer or tinkerer would eventually come
up with, void of all contact with existing software patents
and therefore not innovative.

I certainly couldn't "steal" anything from a software patent
because they reveal nothing, and instead are so vague as to
describe generalities.

And software essentially only automates things that we can
do in our minds.

I can't wait until some genius in the patent office
determines that pure math is patent worthy. Or did they do
that already ... ugh.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 08:50 PM EDT
Seems interesting that HTC with their license agreement with
Apple would be interested in filing an amicus brief here. I'm
kind of surprised that there is language in their mutual
agreement preventing them from getting involved in any way in
Apple litigation.

Also, wasn't the unsealing of the terms of that deal a
material issue in this litigation, thus making them
necessarily an interested party?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )