Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss
An agreement between Google and Samsung, revealed on Tuesday in the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial, has the Internet search giant on the hook for legal fees and liability related to up to four Apple patents.
Apple's '959 patent for universal search. | Source: USPTO
According to in-court reports from Re/code, a Google attorney James Maccoun presented testimony saying the company is contractually obliged to pay for the defense of certain patent claims made against Samsung.
In a taped deposition, Maccoun read emails outlining Google's Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) with Samsung. Aside from the financial aid, the numbers of which remain sealed, Google also agreed to take on responsibility for the same patents if Samsung ends up losing the case, meaning the Mountain View, Calif. company would indemnify the Korean company on those lost claims.
An account from The Verge added detail, noting Google agreed to back Samsung on two patent claims regarding universal search. In the current Apple v. Samsung trial, Apple is asserting one such property.
Specifically, Apple is asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959 for a "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system," which is still in play. Two other claims were pared from Apple's assertions in an effort to narrow the case for an early trial start date.
As noted by the San Jose Mercury News, the presentation of Maccoun's deposition was an attempt by Apple to counter Samsung's defense that its devices should not be singled out as the alleged infringing features were part of Google's Android operating system. In effect, Samsung has been using Google as a shield against Apple's patent infringement claims.
Apple's '959 patent for universal search. | Source: USPTO
According to in-court reports from Re/code, a Google attorney James Maccoun presented testimony saying the company is contractually obliged to pay for the defense of certain patent claims made against Samsung.
In a taped deposition, Maccoun read emails outlining Google's Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) with Samsung. Aside from the financial aid, the numbers of which remain sealed, Google also agreed to take on responsibility for the same patents if Samsung ends up losing the case, meaning the Mountain View, Calif. company would indemnify the Korean company on those lost claims.
An account from The Verge added detail, noting Google agreed to back Samsung on two patent claims regarding universal search. In the current Apple v. Samsung trial, Apple is asserting one such property.
Specifically, Apple is asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959 for a "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system," which is still in play. Two other claims were pared from Apple's assertions in an effort to narrow the case for an early trial start date.
As noted by the San Jose Mercury News, the presentation of Maccoun's deposition was an attempt by Apple to counter Samsung's defense that its devices should not be singled out as the alleged infringing features were part of Google's Android operating system. In effect, Samsung has been using Google as a shield against Apple's patent infringement claims.
Comments
According to Re/Code Google's agreement with their licensees has an indemnity clause and likely always has. It's part of their Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. It's not even a secret agreement.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm
Section 11 for those who'd rather not read more than needed.
According to Re/Code Google's agreement with their licensees has an indemnity clause and likely always has. It's part of their Mobile Application Distribution Agreement.
Prob'ly. It sure underscores that this is a proxy war.
According to Re/Code Google's agreement with their licensees has an indemnity clause and likely always has. It's part of their Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. It's not even a secret agreement.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm
Section 11 for those who'd rather not read more than needed.
It was also interesting to read in the Re/Code article that two of the four patents were dropped from the trial before it began and that background sync ('414) and global search ('959) are the only two patents being asserted in this trial. Admittedly I haven't been paying the closest attention to every detail, but that's a pretty big detail that got past me. Any idea why the other two were dropped?
?
Thanks in advance.
edit: Two more:
?
Thanks in advance.
edit: Two more:
Most of the patents covered in his trial should not have been patented as they cover an idea and not an execution.
The difference is that we have an understaffed under funded patent system, where all you need to get a patent is a worth smith. Throw in a few "apparatus" and "hierarchy" make it 20 pages and you could get a patent for anything.
see this masterful patent on toast: http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436
In the rest of the develop world these patents would be laughed out of court and they have.
An agreement between Google and Samsung, revealed on Tuesday in the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial, has the Internet search giant on the hook for legal fees and liability . . .
According to Re/Code Google's agreement with their licensees has an indemnity clause and likely always has. It's part of their Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. It's not even a secret agreement.
wonder if Samsung, HTC and other Android licenses have already used this provision to recover money they have lost to Apple and Microsoft over patent disputes for technology which comes with Android.
Have they lost any money that should be recovered? I can't think of any right off but perhaps. I would imagine they've reimbursed any of them for legal costs connected with features Google baked into Android.
wonder if Samsung, HTC and other Android licenses have already used this provision to recover money they have lost to Apple and Microsoft over patent disputes for technology which comes with Android.
Have they lost any? I can't think of any right off but perhaps.
the "bounce-back" scroll and "tap to zoom" patents.
Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst. :rolleyes:
As to the rest of the developed world, I'll take the tech innovation leadership of the US any day, by a long shot. No one else comes even close. So, I'll assume we must be doing something right despite all the 'laughter' elsewhere.
How much money was paid out?
I am a lawyer.
Frankly - I find Google to be disgusting and sleazy.
Jobs/Apple should have SUED Eric S. for violation of his fiduciary duty to Apple by stealing confidential/proprietary information while he was on the Board. Perhaps Jobs thought that the scum would not steal/breach his fiduciary duty - so he put him on the Apple board. I think that was a bad tactic - he could have thought back to Bill Gates stealing the operating system that became Windows … I don't get that .. .Jobs was brilliant, but this move was not. Apple should have sued him irrespective - scum / 2 faced in my opinion.
Google is basically taking the position that they can STEAL … and its worth it because they make (by their calculations) more than enough by search off of the stolen technology to pay back its minions when they are liable/attorney fees - its a disgusting calculation.
The Jury/Court needs to see through this and stick it to Samsung - which will be billed to Google. If the Jury/Judge does not - they are just letting the deep pocket bully/"crook?" (opinion) rip off everyone and "make them take me on" … Google is like a liability insurance company or health insurance company … deny deny deny .. .they profit knowing that only a few will actually pierce them, then they pay the discounted bill.
Yep - knowing there is indemnification by Google - SCREAMS stick it to Samsung to send a message … that you cannot steal - and if you do you are going to get nailed. After Jury says "you are a thief" Samsung - the damages should be trebled. Samsung/Google had the opportunity to pay a royalty to Apple - they just said F U - a message needs to be sent. This is a joke-
the "bounce-back" scroll and "tap to zoom" patents.
How much money was paid out?
look it up. No interest in weasel games.
Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst.
If you've got better answers, I'd appreciate hearing them
No I don't. But that does not imply yours are very good.
If I might ask, what is your connection to, and expertise in IP law?
I am a lawyer.
Frankly - I find Google to be disgusting and sleazy.
Jobs/Apple should have SUED Eric S. for violation of his fiduciary duty to Apple by stealing confidential/proprietary information while he was on the Board. Perhaps Jobs thought that the scum would not steal/breach his fiduciary duty - so he put him on the Apple board. I think that was a bad tactic - he could have thought back to Bill Gates stealing the operating system that became Windows … I don't get that .. .Jobs was brilliant, but this move was not. Apple should have sued him irrespective - scum / 2 faced in my opinion.
Google is basically taking the position that they can STEAL … and its worth it because they make (by their calculations) more than enough by search off of the stolen technology to pay back its minions when they are liable/attorney fees - its a disgusting calculation.
The Jury/Court needs to see through this and stick it to Samsung - which will be billed to Google. If the Jury/Judge does not - they are just letting the deep pocket bully/"crook?" (opinion) rip off everyone and "make them take me on" … Google is like a liability insurance company or health insurance company … deny deny deny .. .they profit knowing that only a few will actually pierce them, then they pay the discounted bill.
Yep - knowing there is indemnification by Google - SCREAMS stick it to Samsung to send a message … that you cannot steal - and if you do you are going to get nailed. After Jury says "you are a thief" Samsung - the damages should be trebled. Samsung/Google had the opportunity to pay a royalty to Apple - they just said F U - a message needs to be sent. This is a joke-
surely you have evidence of this Eric Schmidt super spy scenario you've bought into that no one at Apple ever remotely suggested...I'm sure you do...being a lawyer and all.
I've heard that tale so many times yet no one ever has any evidence of it...and hell, the timetables don't really support it at all...Android 1.0 was released nearly 2 years after iPhone announcement and over 2 years after Schmidt was on the board and I'm unsure if you're familiar with Android at all but Android 1.0 was quite possibly the worst thing in the world absent a jailbreak...in fact Android didn't even take off early on and if it wasn't for the marketing campaign for the shitty ugly Moto Droid.
In other words you immediately come across as a know nothing reactive fool when you preface your entire rant with a fabricated story that not even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs mentioned in the least.
No I don't. But that does not imply yours are very good.
If I might ask, what is your connection to, and expertise in IP law?
That's a two way street though...you are assuming everything is perfect because it exists...
luckily that's never really how we, as a species, have worked.
This should be interesting...
I really want HTC to rise and Samsung to fall into ashes and just be a component maker or something.
Samsung has such a bad aura to them...their products seem rushed and half-baked...their obvious me-too-ism and blatant theft of Apple designs, marketing style, everything...they weren't even inspired by anything because they are an uninspired company...just theft. Period.
And the fact that it'll only cost them a couple billion is pathetic.
I don't think the two patents in question are worth their destruction at all but the way they do business should be punished.
No I don't. But that does not imply yours are very good.
If I might ask, what is your connection to, and expertise in IP law?
I think there's a minor misunderstanding here - I'm the guy who asked the questions in the first place, not the guy who responded to them. I'm not satisfied with his answers either, which is why I'm looking for alternate opinions.
Also, for the record, I don't have any connection to or expertise with IP law, which is why I was asking those questions in the first place.
Sorry. Sounded as tho you might know. I'm not aware of any monetary payouts yet but not saying there hasn't been one. As far as anyone playing a weasel game . . . If you'd rather not be bothered to find the answer or discuss it there's no need to make up an excuse. Just don't answer.