walterbyrd writes: "While Microsoft finds it critically important to protect the information of Massachusetts school children from Google, Bill Gates funds a database that "holds files on millions of children identified by name, address and sometimes social security number. Learning disabilities are documented, test scores recorded, attendance noted. In some cases, the database tracks student hobbies, career goals, attitudes toward school — even homework completion.""
walterbyrd writes: "Microsoft scored a victory against Google-owned Motorola Mobility this week after a judge scrapped 13 of the latter party's patent claims in a years-long dispute over H.264-related royalties. Waged in US and German courts, the battle involves three patents (7,310,374, 7,310,375, and 7,310,376) that Motorola licenses to Microsoft for several products, including the Xbox 360, Windows and Windows Phone.
walterbyrd writes: "The gist of the scare campaign is that Google is a scary, scary company that reads your private emails in order to send you targeted ads. Even if you don't use Gmail, if you send email to someone who does, Google goes through those emails to generate advertising revenue too," Microsoft warns in material sent to reporters. Oh, and Microsoft points out that six class-action lawsuits have been filed against Google over this issue, and asks people to sign a petition "to tell Google to stop going through your personal email messages.""
walterbyrd writes: "The latest in the ridiculous saga of the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, which has resulted in Samsung phones and tablets being banned from sale in the US, is that Samsung, with the help of Google, has been pushing out an over-the-air software update to make its phones worse. Yes, the OTA update is designed to take away a feature, in an effort to convince the judge that the phones no longer violate Apple's patents. The feature in question? The ability to do a single search that covers both the local device and the internet."
walterbyrd writes: "Boycotting Apple, refusing to buy their products is what we can do as consumers to support innovation as it should be. Copyrights, trademarks are needed, but when it’s becoming a way to milk some cash, it’s aggressive. There’s clear proof that Apple stole from Google. There’s a real patent absurdity going on there, and everybody would benefit if Apple would cool off their dogs."
walterbyrd writes: "Google is now offering a grand bargain to European regulators. In May, the EC's competition chief Joaquin Almunia offered an olive branch to Google as he layed out areas of "concern" that he said involved a potential "abuse" of the company's market power. Now it seems that Google is apparently willing to alter the way that it ranks other sites in its search listings if European regulators drop an investigation into whether Google abused its dominance in search and online advertising"
walterbyrd writes: "A Nokia spokesperson told The INQUIRER, "Nokia has more than 40 licensees, mainly for its standards essential patent portfolio, including most of the mobile device manufacturers. Neither Google nor Asus is licensed under our patent portfolio.
"Companies who are not yet licensed under our standard essential patents should simply approach us and sign up for a license.""
walterbyrd writes: "Here's a homework assignment for you, if you are willing. I want you to think about those $6 billion damages headlines. Where did the "information" come from? Was it an accurate tip? Remember all those articles about Google and how they were hopelessly in a mess because they had no patents to use in a counterclaim against Oracle? Where did that come from? Was it an accurate analysis? Was it expert? Think: If someone is being paid by a party to litigation, what is he likely to say? There is a difference between information and propaganda.
Here at Groklaw, we told you that there would never be a $6 billion damages award, and I told you that Google has a phenomenal record in beating back patent infringement claims. And I wrote that the patents looked goofball to me. Just like with SCO against the World, Groklaw called it right.
Think of the smearing that Google has had to endure. I hope you fix that now, if you participated in it unwittingly. What does this verdict mean? It means that Google did nothing wrong with Oracle's patents ever at any time. It was Oracle who was in the wrong. There was no patent infringement. Period."
walterbyrd writes: "Google won everything but the one issue that the judge has to decide anyway, the API SSO issue. The jury found, as they had been instructed to assume for the purposes of deliberation, that APIs can be copyrighted, the structure, sequence and arrangement of APIs, but that is by no means established. The same question, in a b) section, asked if fair use excused any infringement if found, and the jury couldn't resolve that issue. But the judge has to decide whether or not that is true, that APIs can be protected by copyright. That comes later this month. Meanwhile, Oracle prevailed only on 9 lines of code that Google admitted prior to trial to have included by mistake and then removed from current Android. Oracle's own expert, the judge pointed out in court, valued those 9 lines of code at zero. This is 9 lines out of millions. So that means, if we are looking at damages, that so far Oracle has won nothing. There is no liability. You can't have infringement without considering fair use, Google asserts, and there will be briefing on that. Somebody has to decide that fair use issue. And then the judge has to decide about the API copyrightability issue. If he rules that APIs can't be copyrighted, as the EU Court of Justice just ruled, then fair use is moot. And Oracle takes nothing at all from the copyright phase of this litigation, and this was heralded far and wide by Oracle people as the big ticket item, if you recall."
walterbyrd writes: "Microsoft explicitly called out Google for their behaviour but either neglected to mention or didn't investigate Facebook (skeptics may believe that this is because of Microsoft's shareholding in Facebook and their partnerships in search and advertising (HT ask4n)). If Google is being asked to set proper P3P headers (and it appears that they have already altered at least some of their servers) then Facebook should also he held to the same standard."
walterbyrd writes: "My first hint of cause for alarm came as one of their head lobbyists sat down beside the four of us from the Swedish Pirate Party at second row center in the large room, and I overheard the following words from Christian Engström, Member of European Parliament, as the two were exchanging a few words waiting for the seminar to begin: – So your primary source of funding is Microsoft, then?"
walterbyrd writes: "Google’s attitude toward patent licensing – specifically those deemed essential to standards – that have raised issues. In comparison to Apple and Microsoft, “Google’s commitments were more ambiguous and do not provide the same direct confirmation of its SEP [standard essential patent] licensing policies” the DOJ antitrust division said in a statement. (Funny, I thought Google was one of the few US tech giants that doesn't rountinely abuse the US patents system, and US legal system)."
walterbyrd writes: "In what is believed to be the largest-ever corporate grant devoted to the advocacy, intervention and rescue of people being held, forced to work or provide sex against their will, Google said it chose organizations with proven records in combating slavery."