Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android

Submission + - Microsoft Gains Ground In Motorola Patent Lawsuit (seattlepi.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In its Android-related patent suit against Motorola, Microsoft has just netted a
'major win' according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Microsoft blog. RedmondMag.com also says Microsoft is 'scoring points'. Both articles refer to a recently published claim construction order by the ITC judge investigating Microsoft's complaint, which could result in an import ban against Android-based Motorola smartphones. Claim construction is an intermediate step and important milestone: depending on how the language of the asserted patents is interpreted, a defendant may or may not be found liable for infringement. Motorola's proposed interpretations were adopted by the judge in only 5 of 22 cases. Motorola was the first Android device maker to be sued by Microsoft. HTC is reportedly paying Microsoft $5 per Android device, but prices have gone up, says the same analyst. More recently, Microsoft also sued Barnes and Noble (and its manufacturers FoxConn and Inventec) over the Nook and Nook Color e-book readers. That's why Microsoft's patent litigation with Motorola is of concern to a number of companies.

Desktops (Apple)

Submission + - Window 8 to look like Windows Phone 7 (computerworld.com)

NicknamesAreStupid writes: According to Computer World, Microsoft is previewing the new UI for the next generation of Windows. It looks a lot like the UI for their Windows Phone, you know, the phenomenally successful device that has taken over the mobile world, uh, maybe not. Apple chose not to use such a touch paradigm for their iMacs UI because the touchy-feely interface was not considered intuitive. Who is right?

Comment Re:Those files were distributed by device makers (Score 0) 123

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.

Comment Re:Those files were distributed by device makers (Score 0) 123

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.

Comment Re:Those files were distributed by device makers (Score -1, Troll) 123

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.

Comment I was the first one to debunk the "3 claims" story (Score 0) 123

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.

Comment Not only iOS apps but also Mac and Android (Score 0, Troll) 123

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.

Comment mocoNews article explains Apple's dilemma well (Score 4, Informative) 93

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.

Comment The statement isn't strong enough (by far) (Score 5, Interesting) 197

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.

Patents

Submission + - First Smartphone Patent To Target App Developers (blogspot.com)

FlorianMueller writes: "Smartphone patent suits continue to sweep over the land. After getting bad vibes from the ITC on its complaint against Apple, Nokia just filed another suit over seven more patents. In Southern California, a spatial data patent is asserted against RIM, Google and Microsoft. Oddly, the patent holder is represented by the law firm that advises the Open Source Initiative. But the latest smartphone patent suit, filed by a company named H-W Technology L.C., is particularly worrying: among the 32 defendants it names — besides Google, Microsoft and device makers (all of whom are used to getting sued ) — various companies because of their smartphone apps: Amazon.com, eBay, Hotels.com, Expedia, Priceline.com, Orbitz Worldwide, Kayak.com, and Verizon. Those are companies who can defend themselves, but what if patent holders start to go after other app developers who don't have deep pockets? Patent holders may already have begun to demand royalties from developers of commercially successful apps..."

Slashdot Top Deals

This system will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...