Again, I don't have to prove something I never said in the first place. My original post on that copyright issue didn't claim that any phone contained that code. So why would I have to prove it? Only because someone purposely misunderstood what I had written? In terms of copyright infringement, it's very simple: an infringement is an infringement is an infringement. And the mere publication of such files on the Internet is an infringement is an infringement is an infringement.

If you want to prove me wrong, show me that none of those phones shipped them. In my original post on the Oracle/Google copyright issue I didn't even say that it was shipped on any particular phone. That was just a strawman set up by Ed Burnette, a ZDNet blogger. Re-read my original January 21, 2011 post on this topic: everything I said in there was correct. You might also want to read this blog post, which quotes from an official court document that shows Oracle did present those decompiled Java files to the court.

The fact that some device makers included them in their source code distributions while others left them out could indicate that some actually used those files while others didn't. Apart from that, even just distributing such files online raises copyright liability issues.

Please take into consideration that several major Android device makers included those files in their official source code distributions (source availability packs).

Lodsys disputes that Apple's license covers its app developers. So according to Lodsys, the situations are analogous.

Actually, I was not wrong on the Oracle/Google patents issue but the first one to point out that Oracle would realistically not be forced to narrow its asserted patent claims down to only 3. By now it's clear that Oracle has made headway on that issue, and Oracle's most recent bargaining position was still 21 claims. Apart from that, your comment was off-topic. We're talking about Lodsys here, and if you ask iOS app developers about my blog, I'm sure many of them will tell you that they found the information my blog (such as my detailed Lodsys FAQ) useful.

An app developer reported on a patent assertion against various baby tracker apps, and if the report is accurate, Apple removed some apps from it store because a patent holder claimed infringement.

Most of the infringement accusations relate to iOS apps, but they also include one Mac app (Twitterriffic for Mac) and one Android app (Labyrinth for Android).

Unfortunately, the defense theory communicated by Apple in its letter to Lodsys -- and another theory discussed on the Internet in recent weeks (divided infringement) -- could be wrong.

In this context I would like to strongly recommend this new mocoNews (paidContent.org) article entitled "Mobile Patent War On The Little Guy Demands Response From Apple". Tom Krazit explains very well what the business issues are, including that Apple itself sues over patents quite actively, especially against Android.

Where did RMS ever confirm to have met PJ?

Groklaw's well-documented "sandboxing" of user comments was a serious issue, and I think too many people forget about that in light of the announcement of its shutdown.

There are some things to like about Google's statement, but let's be realistic: this isn't a clear statement against all software patents including their own PageRank and Google Doodle patents. They complain about "low-quality software patents". That's absolutely not the same as being against all software patents. It means that they just believe many of those patents aren't good enough. However, the answer that politicians give then is to provide more funding to the patent offices of the world, not to abolish software patents.

I've done a lot of work on patent policy (with my NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004/05 and otherwise) and I know that the difference between saying "some [or even 'many'] software patents are bad" and saying that "all software patents must be abolished" is like a difference between night and day. Actually, lobbying entities working for Microsoft also call for more patent quality all the time. That's definitely not a sufficient statement to be interpreted as a call for the abolition of all software patents no matter how "good" they may be relative to other software patents.

It's like saying "we are against unjust wars" as opposed to saying "we should never go to war."

I also analyzed Google's amicus curiae brief in the Bilski case and found that it advocated higher patent quality and raised issues but didn't go far enough to really demand the abolition of software patents.

They wasted money. You don't need actors to pretend they appreciate an Android-based product. Just film some patent attorneys who benefit from it.

I saw this post, which links to my blog, and then the comment above from Half-pint HAL claiming it's a European court that happens to be based in the Netherlands. However, Half-pint HAL is Full-scale WRONG on this one. It was a purely Dutch proceeding. A ruling issued in Breda, Netherlands, was appealed to the next higher Dutch instance in The Hague.

No European court is based in The Hague. The European courts are based in Luxembourg (Court of Justice of the EU, General Court of the EU) and Strasbourg (the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU institution but connected to the Council of Europe, which includes non-EU countries like Russia).

There are international courts in The Hague, such as the International Criminal Court and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Those aren't European courts, however. Neither EU nor otherwise European.