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.

I believe this makes a patent settlement between Apple and Nokia in the form of a cross-license easier and more likely to happen in the near term. That's the biggest IT patent war I've ever seen. Apple asserted a variety of smartphone-related patents such as touchscreen user interface patents against Nokia in response to Nokia enforcing some standards-related (GSM, UMTS etc.) patents. Now that Nokia has chosen Windows Phone for the high end, I can't imagine that Apple would enforce patents against a Microsoft operating system. Those two companies haven't had a patent fight in a long time. It would make strategic sense for Apple and Nokia to settle and to focus on competitors building Android-based devices. I commented on this in more detail on my blog.

Happy to clarify. I was talking about misuse of mod points. The purpose of mod points is to rate posts by their content (as opposed to holding an overall popularity vote on the author). Rating a reasonable contribution to a discussion as a "troll" post constitutes misuse because it means an unjustified rating, with the effect that readers are less likely to get access to useful information. It's anti-social behavior because it adversely affects the quality of the information people are likely to see here.

It's not a "creative interpretation" to refer to android.git.kernel.org as Android. I will clarify this, with some additional information that may surprise some, on my blog soon.