or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss

post #1 of 92
Thread Starter 
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.
post #2 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm

Section 11 for those who'd rather not read more than needed.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/22/14 at 4:13pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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.

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply
post #4 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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?

post #5 of 92
Got a few questions for people more familiar with the 'universal search' patent than I - if anyone knows the answers I'd be very grateful: 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Ubuntu's (combined local machine / internet search)?
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Windows' that search drives connected via LAN? 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and search features like that of iTunes, Spotify and other similar content-distribution systems, where local files (installed / downloaded media) are searched together with remote files (stuff in a store / streamable media)?
  • Does a claim like 'The method of claim 14 wherein said other heuristic locates Internet web pages' cover 'submit the input to Google and rank items by search result position'? If so, why is this patentable (particularly given that Apple do not provide the backend search mechanism)? If not, what's the difference?

Thanks in advance.

 

edit: Two more:

  • Why does the 'background sync' patent not cover all modern browsers, mail clients, etc. etc? 
  • If you remove the 'one of these is a handheld device' from the background sync patent, does the patent still have any merit? If so, where? If not, why does adding 'on a mobile' make it patentable?

Edited by DarkLite - 4/22/14 at 3:57pm
post #6 of 92
p

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Ubuntu's (combined local machine / internet search)?
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Windows' that search drives connected via LAN? 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and search features like that of iTunes, Spotify and other similar content-distribution systems, where local files (installed / downloaded media) are searched together with remote files (stuff in a store / streamable media)?
  • Does a claim like 'The method of claim 14 wherein said other heuristic locates Internet web pages' cover 'submit the input to Google and rank items by search result position'? If so, why is this patentable (particularly given that Apple do not provide the backend search mechanism)? If not, what's the difference?

Thanks in advance.

 

edit: Two more:

  • Why does the 'background sync' patent not cover all modern browsers, mail clients, etc. etc? 
  • If you remove the 'one of these is a handheld device' from the background sync patent, does the patent still have any merit? If so, where? If not, why does adding 'on a mobile' make it patentable?

 

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. 

post #7 of 92
popcorn. pronto.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #8 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #9 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

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.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/22/14 at 5:02pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

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.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #11 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


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. 

Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst. 1rolleyes.gif

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.
post #12 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

the "bounce-back" scroll and "tap to zoom" patents.

How much money was paid out?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 92

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-

post #14 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

the "bounce-back" scroll and "tap to zoom" patents.

How much money was paid out?

look it up. No interest in weasel games.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #15 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst. 1rolleyes.gif

If you've got better answers, I'd appreciate hearing them :)

post #16 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst. 1rolleyes.gif
If you've got better answers, I'd appreciate hearing them 1smile.gif

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?
post #17 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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.

post #18 of 92

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.

post #19 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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.

post #20 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

look it up. No interest in weasel games.

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.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/22/14 at 6:05pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

look it up. No interest in weasel games.

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 I didn't recognize that's what you were doing.

pity, you were making such good progress for a while there.  guess it's hard for people to change.  The door will remain open if you decide to come back from troll town.  we all have off days.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #22 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Ubuntu's (combined local machine / internet search)?
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Windows' that search drives connected via LAN? 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and search features like that of iTunes, Spotify and other similar content-distribution systems, where local files (installed / downloaded media) are searched together with remote files (stuff in a store / streamable media)?
  • Does a claim like 'The method of claim 14 wherein said other heuristic locates Internet web pages' cover 'submit the input to Google and rank items by search result position'? If so, why is this patentable (particularly given that Apple do not provide the backend search mechanism)? If not, what's the difference?

Thanks in advance.

edit: Two more:
  • Why does the 'background sync' patent not cover all modern browsers, mail clients, etc. etc? 
  • If you remove the 'one of these is a handheld device' from the background sync patent, does the patent still have any merit? If so, where? If not, why does adding 'on a mobile' make it patentable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

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.

Pass the popcorn indeed. You sure sound like a lazy lawyer for Samsung or google .

NOBODY will give you those answers. You will have to do your own work lol 1cool.gif
...so get to work.
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #23 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

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.

Got it. Sorry. My response was to peterbob who was going on about how the rest of the world laughs etc. Your questions were perfectly legit.

When you responded to my post, I confused the two of you. Apologies.
post #24 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post

That's a two way street though...you are assuming everything is perfect because it exists...

No, I wasn't.

I made a mistake in conflating two posters, and I've explained above.
post #25 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No, I wasn't.

I made a mistake in conflating two posters, and I've explained above.

Yea I saw that. My bad.
post #26 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post
 

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.

 

He doesn't need hard evidence to have an opinion. Circumstansial evidence, or no evidence at all is fine. Being a lawyer myself, I can tell you it is law school 101 that a corporate officer owes a fiduciary duty to the company whose Board he or she sits on. Simply put, you can't do anything that goes against the interest of the company. Fact is Eric Schmitt resigned from Apple's Board in 2009, nearly two years after the iPhone came out. He was on Apple's Board a year before the iPhone came out. Further, the iPhone began development in 2004. It seems highly unlikely that a member of Apple's board would not be apprised of a bet the company product in development like the iPhone.

 

 

Moreover, it seems highly suspect that after Eric Schmitt joined Apple, Google essentially becomes interested in going from just a search related company to an every market Apple is involved in company. 

 

So, his view is valid, and I often wondered the same thing. Why didn't Apple go after Schmitt? Perhaps, Jobs didn't think it was a good move for whatever reason, but from the outside, I wonder why. 

post #27 of 92

By chance, did you paste the wrong link?

 

That is not a patent on toast, at all. It describes a way to use a high heat source (2500F-4500F) to re-establish conditions that existed toward the beginning of the bread products life, at the cost of reduced mass. So you get a product, but it's slightly smaller and/or lighter (I'm not sure from the patent) bread that consumers will find more fresh or tasteful than it was before the process was applied.

 

At least that is my take away after reading it. Perhaps my interpretation is off.

 

Thanks for posting that link. It was an interesting read, none the less.

 

AS

post #28 of 92
Just as I had previously stated (somewhere back in my post history about a week ago), this case involves indirect infringement and indemnification by Google of its licensees. I knew that would finally come to the surface in front of the jurors. Should have a positive effect (positive for Apple) on the verdict and award, as the jurors will no longer feel conflicted regarding Samsung being forced to pay for Google's infringement.
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #29 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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.

 

Nice indemnification policy they have there. Paying costs for the lawsuits after the fact instead of taking a license to avoid all this in the first place.

 

My question is, why didn't Google step in when Microsoft went after Android vendors for the stolen IP that Google put in Android? It was just announced that Motorola Solutions (not Mobility) became the 24th Android vendor to settle with Microsoft.

 

Or does Google "pick and choose" which vendors it will indemnify and how much they will pay on a case-by-case basis? In other words, if you're Samsung then Google will work with you, but if you're HTC they won't (all they did to help HTC was attempt to "loan" them some patents to use against Apple). How so very generous of Google. Too bad it didn't work (for many reasons).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

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?

 

They were dropped last year to pare down the case and have less patents to deal with. Samsung also dropped several patents last year. The bigger news is that Samsung dropped the two SEP's they were asserting against Apple shortly before the trial (likely due to the FTC "monitoring" Samsung over SEP abuse).

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #30 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Nice indemnification policy they have there. Paying costs for the lawsuits after the fact instead of taking a license to avoid all this in the first place.

My question is, why didn't Google step in when Microsoft went after Android vendors for the stolen IP that Google put in Android? It was just announced that Motorola Solutions (not Mobility) became the 24th Android vendor to settle with Microsoft.

Or does Google "pick and choose" which vendors it will indemnify and how much they will pay on a case-by-case basis? In other words, if you're Samsung then Google will work with you, but if you're HTC they won't (all they did to help HTC was attempt to "loan" them some patents to use against Apple). How so very generous of Google. Too bad it didn't work (for many reasons).

Microsoft has never proven any patents that are infringed by Android have they? I don't believe they'll even discuss what they think might be infringed without first getting a signed NDA. What are they hiding? Sure sounds a bit trollish to issue threats but not identifying what's supposedly infringing. In fact I think that was one of your own "signs of a troll".

Anyway, I thought you'd be happy to see that Google indemnifies it's licensees just as Microsoft does. A week ago you were shouting about how unfair it was to licensees that Google didn't do so. Now you find they do and you still try to complain.

By the way I linked Google's apparently standard contract earlier. Pretty sure they would have the same basic contract terms for all the companies licensing their services. Compare it to the one offered as evidence in the Oracle trial to see if they match.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm

EDIT: Yup, matches up pretty well to the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement HTC signed with Google. So HTC was indemnified too.
http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf

Is this your cue to start the personal insults and change the subject?
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/22/14 at 7:00pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Ubuntu's (combined local machine / internet search)?
  • What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Windows' that search drives connected via LAN? 
  • What is the difference between the patent, and search features like that of iTunes, Spotify and other similar content-distribution systems, where local files (installed / downloaded media) are searched together with remote files (stuff in a store / streamable media)?
  • Does a claim like 'The method of claim 14 wherein said other heuristic locates Internet web pages' cover 'submit the input to Google and rank items by search result position'? If so, why is this patentable (particularly given that Apple do not provide the backend search mechanism)? If not, what's the difference?

Thanks in advance.

 

edit: Two more:

  • Why does the 'background sync' patent not cover all modern browsers, mail clients, etc. etc? 
  • If you remove the 'one of these is a handheld device' from the background sync patent, does the patent still have any merit? If so, where? If not, why does adding 'on a mobile' make it patentable?

You really should ask a patent attorney. It is highly unlikely that anyone here is both knowledgeable enough and willing to explain all this to you. Even if you got a qualified person to answer these questions, I don't see why anybody not directly involved in patent law would invest the time and effort to understand the answers. 

post #32 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post
 

 

 

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. 

There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin. You should stop pretending to understand our patent system and quit posting nonsense. 

post #33 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Just as I had previously stated (somewhere back in my post history about a week ago), this case involves indirect infringement and indemnification by Google of its licensees.

Yes you did.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Exactly. As I have always maintained, Scamsung are just the mindless, fridge making drones, Google is the true evil and should be hoisted on the pitch fork. Perhaps this will come to pass. Excuse me, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi and tend to believe there is justice in the Universe, my bad.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #35 of 92

post #36 of 92
Both Apple and Samsung have dropped patents from this suit. This does not necessarily imply that those patents have no value. What this means is the patents pursued in this were chosen from a group of patents to be the strongest in the original class chosen by each plaintiff. In this suit Apple still has 5 patents that are actively being considered by the jury. Samsung has 2 patents that they bought, at least one of which they already were paid for by other parties and are expecting more payment from Apple.

Apple may get nothing from this suit, but I would not bet on that. This news about Samsung says that Samsung wouldn't bet on it either. Google is the one betting and they have enough money to do so. Whether that bet is good, or honest, or reasonable is for the jury to decide, not the pundits who rarely know what they are talking about.
post #37 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
They were dropped last year to pare down the case and have less patents to deal with. Samsung also dropped several patents last year. The bigger news is that Samsung dropped the two SEP's they were asserting against Apple shortly before the trial (likely due to the FTC "monitoring" Samsung over SEP abuse).

 

Thanks.  I remember that both parties were forced to narrow down how many patents they were suing for, but I thought that Apple narrowed it down to five patents and that slide-to-unlock ('721), autocorrect ('172), and quicklinks ('647) were patents that were included in this trial.  So the $2.5 billion in damages that Apple wants is for two patents (background sync ('414) and global search ('959))?

 

EDIT:  DED has answered this in a different thread.


Edited by DroidFTW - 4/23/14 at 12:13am
post #38 of 92

you are a "dumma" as a 100% math guy I admire refers to bluntly as those who are clueless.

 

read the evidence dumma - its there - you clearly are not.

 

the fact that a copied product comes out a year - 2 year later is obvious its not stolen?????? you are gibberish .. it takes a long time to fabricate a copy cat type set up like it did Microsoft did you .. dumma.

 

Jobs messed up - the sleezeball copycat should not have been on the board and Apple should have just sued his A off and Google since they knew what he ripped off and the evidence shows it -

post #39 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Microsoft has never proven any patents that are infringed by Android have they? I don't believe they'll even discuss what they think might be infringed without first getting a signed NDA. What are they hiding? Sure sounds a bit trollish to issue threats but not identifying what's supposedly infringing. In fact I think that was one of your own "signs of a troll".

Anyway, I thought you'd be happy to see that Google indemnifies it's licensees just as Microsoft does. A week ago you were shouting about how unfair it was to licensees that Google didn't do so. Now you find they do and you still try to complain.

By the way I linked Google's apparently standard contract earlier. Pretty sure they would have the same basic contract terms for all the companies licensing their services. Compare it to the one offered as evidence in the Oracle trial to see if they match.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm

EDIT: Yup, matches up pretty well to the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement HTC signed with Google. So HTC was indemnified too.
http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf

Is this your cue to start the personal insults and change the subject?

 

Man, you are so full of crap my monitor stinks. How many times do we have to explain this to you before it finally sinks in?


You actually have the nerve to bring up that last discussion? Good. I'm going to quote it to show everyone just how stupid (ignorant) your obvious trolling comments were. You should be fine with that, since you brought it up, right? Just like in a court, once you open a door the prosecution will pursue it to the end.

 

Before I get to that, you should have read that document through. You missed a HUGE problem with it that I picked up right away. It only talks about Google Applications. Let me say that word again. Applications. They list all included Applications, but you might recognize some of them: Gmail, Google Maps, Youtube, Google Earth, even Orkut is mentioned.

 

Did you get that? The actual Android OS itself IS NOT indemnified in that HTC agreement you linked to. Microsoft indemnifies ALL their OS software products.

 

Excuse me while I dig up your pathetic history on this topic.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #40 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes you did.

Here's that post again. I think this new article warrants a reprint of it:

Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed Indirect Infringement.

First, let's speak about direct infringement:

Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.

Now let's discuss indirect infringement.

If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.

Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages.

Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss