Originally Posted by Corrections
The point of taking patent cases to the ITC is that it can block products relatively quickly, rather than fighting for years and getting either nothing or a vindication ruling 4 years later that doesn't matter anymore.
That's why Apple (and Motorola, Microsoft, etc) is taking cases to the ITC. But Apple is also suing in regular courts, and once it builds up enough wins (especially important ones like this 263 patent), it could sue Google for damages, if Google doesn't give up on copying Apple's stuff.
It actually seems more likely that Oracle will win enough of a case against Google to make the future of Android a dead end, converting it either to Java, or alternatively, Google backing away from a JVM design and jumping to phones that run web apps like the Chrome OS.
Oracle wants royalties, not to shut Android down. However, given Google's "free" Android OS business model, somebody's gotta foot the royalty bill.
And I do agree that at some point Google can and will be sued by Apple.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They should have had at least one
win by now. So far it's only a few preliminary decisions that have both given and taken away. Apparently the blatant copying is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some have made it out to be.
If you can see how divided technical experts are on whether Apple has a strong case or not, imagine how much more difficult this is for non-technical judges and juries....???
Originally Posted by chabig
Still, there is nothing to prevent an injunction against the distribution of Android itself.
So far Apple is trying to block the importation of offending devices into the U.S. and other countries. I don't think the ITC can put an injunction in place when both Apple and Google are U.S. companies.
Originally Posted by jason98
I am not a patent expert, but this looks like a bad and questionable patent to me.
But what about the essential UI innovations that define the iPhone, and also made Android so successful and interchangeable with the Apple's original products?
I mean multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, page transitions?
They covered by Apple's IP, aren't they? If so why can't they win based on these patents?
Are they considered prior art, invalid?
Apple has won on some IU points, such as inertial scrolling, and Samsung has had to remove such for importation into Australia. Court orders have forced other modifications to continue importing Samsung into parts of Europe.
While all this is going on both Samsung and Amazon have done a fork of Android version 2.2 which has, in effect, deprived Google of some of the data mining they need to support their advertising model...which negates the whole purpose of giving away Android.
Apple, by attacking the weaker HTC, has improved their odds of a win. Once there is a win on '363 with HTC, Apple has a defacto win on all Android imports and can effect an immediate shut down of all imports.
Then they can go butcher the big sow over at Google.
Apple is making several statements by all this legal action:
1. Don't mess with Apple.
2. It doesn't matter if you are making an OS or including an offending OS in your product; don't think you are safe from costly litigation with Apple if the OS is tainted.
3. Apple knows that enterprise users are watching all this unfold, and if they get jittery about Android, they will back away from using it in their plans.