Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal

24567

Comments

  • chabigchabig Posts: 600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The code can only infringe on a patent if the code itself was copied, not the implementation of a concept. If the code is different then there is no infringement, that is until it is implemented and only then does the look and feel, design and functionality become an issue as I believe is the case of patent 263. The code itself is not an infringement unless it was stolen, but I don't think that is what Apple is arguing.



    Why do you think patent infringement relies on copied code? Patent infringement doesn't rely on copied code. In fact, the patent in question has no code! The patent is on a method of performing real-time signal processing on serially transmitted data. If the method Google uses infringes on the claims of Apple's patent, then Android infringes, even if the code is different.



    That said, I am no expert, and am not able to argue this point with certainty.
  • tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    steve jobs will be smiling where he is now..round 1 good start
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chabig View Post


    That said, I am no expert, and am not able to argue this point with certainty.



    Nor am I.



    I look at it like this: Cars are legal and booze is legal but if you combine them, that is against the law.



    The Android code is legal since it is not a copy (for sake of argument) and a piece of hardware made of silicon and plastic is also legal. It is when you combine the two that a possible infringement might become an issue. It is the implementation not the actual code that is being challenged. Because the code is free, the implementer, i.e. the handset maker, who is selling the end product, is the one in violation.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Nor am I.



    I look at it like this: Cars are legal and booze is legal but if you combine them, that is against the law.



    The Android code is legal since it is not a copy (for sake of argument) and a piece of hardware made of silicon and plastic is also legal. It is when you combine the two that a possible infringement might become an issue. It is the implementation not the actual code that is being challenged. Because the code is free, the implementer, i.e. the handset maker, who is selling the end product, is the one in violation.



    That certainly sounds reasonable. Perhaps it's just that simple, and the reason Apple hasn't sued Google directly, tho I'm no expert either.
  • drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ...

    Mueller notes that "a jury is very likely to find Android to infringe the patent based on that construction but much less likely to deem the patent invalid."

    ...



    I believe Mueller is mistaken here. The current opinion of the commission states that the '263 patent is invalid under Apple's construction of "realtime API". If this opinion is upheld, the chance of deeming the patent invalid is higher with the new appellate judge's order to accept Apple's definition, so an infringement would be moot.



    In any case, Apple is successful even without Android suffering a setback, so the spiteful remarks are quite unnecessary.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I don't see how Apple could ask the courts to do that since Android is just code and free code at that. Apple can sue the handset makers because that is where the implementation of design patents is infringed upon. Oracle on the other hand has alleged that Google lifted some of their code so they could possibly be in a position to prevent the distribution of Android. Except that is not what Oracle would want. They would surely prefer royalties since they don't have a competing product in the marketplace.



    Absolutely false. Even a non-profit organization or someone distributing free code can easily be sued for patent infringement. Contributory infringement, if nothing else.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The code can only infringe on a patent if the code itself was copied, not the implementation of a concept. If the code is different then there is no infringement, that is until it is implemented and only then does the look and feel, design and functionality become an issue as I believe is the case of patent 263. The code itself is not an infringement unless it was stolen, but I don't think that is what Apple is arguing.



    You're confusing copyright infringement with patent infringement. For patent infringement, it's irrelevant whether it's the same code. If you were to patent a way to use a certain process to derive a result, then it would be a violation to use the same process to derive that result - regardless of whether the code was different or not.



    In fact, requiring the thing to be identical would negate the entire principle of having a patent. "Your honor, our superconducting magnet does not infringe the patent because even though we copied their design exactly, we wound ours counterclockwise while they wound theirs clockwise." See how silly that would be?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I think the bigger question is Google going to help their licensees with their legal defenses as Apple continues to sue them?



    That's already been determined. Google has made it clear that they're not going to indemnify anyone. Just one of the reasons Android licensees should be scared to death about Google acquiring Motorola. Motorola will have access to Google's resources while no one else will.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,735moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple argued that Rubin "began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."



    I wikied Andy Rubin...



    His years at Apple, then General Magic were between 1989-1992 and 1992-1995.



    Steve Jobs was not at Apple from early 1985 to late 1996.



    So Andy and Steve never crossed paths at Apple.



    I don't know that this has any bearing on the patent or the ruling...
  • jj.yuanjj.yuan Posts: 212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Srice View Post


    If Google were sticking to their '"Don't Be Evil" mantra, they would



    I admit that for a while I liked the mantra, or the sound of it. But, in recent 2-3 years, I have started to doubt seriously Google's intention. I think it is just a cover for whatever evil Google desires to do. As of now, I consider Google to BE the Evil.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Absolutely false. Even a non-profit organization or someone distributing free code can easily be sued for patent infringement. Contributory infringement, if nothing else.



    Provided there is some precedent for such a case, why then has Apple not simply asked Google to stop or ask the court to issue a cease and desist ?
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,735moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    ...



    I think the bigger question is Google going to help their licensees with their legal defenses as Apple continues to sue them?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    ...



    That's already been determined. Google has made it clear that they're not going to indemnify anyone. Just one of the reasons Android licensees should be scared to death about Google acquiring Motorola. Motorola will have access to Google's resources while no one else will.



    At what point in time does Windows Phone 7 and Windows 8 become more appealing to OEMs than Android.



    Some are already paying MS to use Android... I'd be surprised if most OEMs aren't actively looking for a less encumbered alternative.



    It will be ironic if all the supposed benefits of Android to Google -- end up being realized by Microsoft.



    Maybe Rubin is an undercover MS plant at Google -- similar to Elop at Nokia...



  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chrispy View Post


    And in other news...the six member ITC Commission are still enjoying their brand new Mercedes Benz's.



    Their brand new Mercedes Benz's what?
  • pokepoke Posts: 506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post


    I admit that for a while I liked the mantra, or the sound of it. But, in recent 2-3 years, I have started to doubt seriously Google's intention. I think it is just a cover for whatever evil Google desires to do. As of now, I consider Google to BE the Evil.



    Like everything Google does it works because of its ambiguity. On the one hand, it's obvious from the context that "don't be evil" meant "don't act like other web portals and ad services, put the users first" but it's ambiguous enough that regardless of what they do Google fanatics can now say "that's not really evil!" They do the same thing with using "open" in an ambiguous, flexible way. I don't know if it's intentional or it just reflects the ambiguity at the heart of Google (i.e., Page and Brin are kind hearted guys stuck in what is inevitably a seedy revenue model), but that ambiguity has gone a long way for them. I think it was Horace Dediu who said Google is basically a regressive tax on the internet "poor" (normal users) in order to provide services for the internet "rich" (tech-savvy geeks who block ads but consume more of Google's services). Another way to look at it is that Google buys off the geek / open source community (who are usually the main critics when it comes to privacy and the commercialisation of the internet) in order to avoid criticism.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,083member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The code can only infringe on a patent if the code itself was copied, not the implementation of a concept.



    actually you can have a patent infringement with directly copying the code. It all depends on how deep you go into having the same implementation.



    In this case, apple seems to be arguing that their patent is one specific and unique implementation of the general idea of subsystems swapping info etc. AND that Rubin was a key figure in creating that implementation and took it to Google where they used the same implementation, only a few words are different due to using a different coding language.



    And it seems that this judge at least agrees that the patent is valid and infringement has occurred.
  • drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    ...



    And it seems that this judge at least agrees that the patent is valid and infringement has occurred.



    Where do you read that?
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    actually you can have a patent infringement with directly copying the code. It all depends on how deep you go into having the same implementation.



    In this case, apple seems to be arguing that their patent is one specific and unique implementation of the general idea of subsystems swapping info etc. AND that Rubin was a key figure in creating that implementation and took it to Google where they used the same implementation, only a few words are different due to using a different coding language.



    And it seems that this judge at least agrees that the patent is valid and infringement has occurred.



    Yes, but against HTC, the implementer, not Google, the programmer. I don't disagree that Google totally ripped off iPhone OS but finding a legal precedent to apply to making a case against Google seems to be more difficult than bringing a suit against a handset maker.
  • nkalunkalu Posts: 315member
    Simply put: Andy Rubin stole Apple's technology to start Android. Sad.
  • jonoromjonorom Posts: 293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Their brand new Mercedes Benz's what?



    Perhaps they are enjoying Mercedes Benz's new navigation system? http://www.dynamicpatents.com/2009/0...-infringement/



    Mercedes-Benz USA Subject of Patent Infringement
  • urbansprawlurbansprawl Posts: 153member
    For law, we have to quarrel over the small details that often may seem mildly bogus. The big picture is Google having access to Apple's board and buying a phone OS project and swinging it in the direction of what they saw in apple and knew they'd have to copy or there phone platform would be irrelevant. That's why Apple deserve justice against Android.



    (And Samsung is just as shameless)
  • drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by urbansprawl View Post


    For law, we have to quarrel over the small details that often may seem mildly bogus. The big picture is Google having access to Apple's board and buying a phone OS project and swinging it in the direction of what they saw in apple and knew they'd have to copy or there phone platform would be irrelevant. That's why Apple deserve justice against Android.



    (And Samsung is just as shameless)



    Are you claiming that Google saw the direction via Rubin (who worked at Apple in the 90-ties), or via Schmidt, who was on the board of Apple 2006-2009? Or maybe it was one big coordinated scam planned more than 20 years ago, possibly with Samsung's involvement?
  • absolutedesignzabsolutedesignz Posts: 1,930member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkalu View Post


    Simply put: Andy Rubin stole Apple's technology to start Android. Sad.



    yes...the '263 is what Android is...good job. you cracked it.
Sign In or Register to comment.