Theft is evil in every religion, as far as I know. It doesn't matter whether it's criminal or civil. The people doing it are still stealing property that isn't theirs, and they are doing it willfully.
And has been brought up a couple of posts ago, Google has their own definition of evil, and their actions should be measured against the standards they set up for themselves.
People are far less likely to forgive a hypocrite.
You have to pay, you don't have to get permission - different things. And you can record the cover without even paying, you just can't distribute. The point is that Google didn't necessarily need consent to scan the books, because the law there is as yet unclear. It may fall under fair use.
You are wrong again. You must get permission. Now, if you're doing this for yourself, then, well, who's to know? If you record something, but don't release it, then who's to know?
But something isn't recorded commercially without the intent to publish. And so they must get permission, and a license. It's true that the license is almost never withheld, but it can be, and has been.
If you read copyrights, you will see that permission to copy is granted just for the purposes of reviews, a few paragraphs. In order to copy the entire book, you need permission.
If this is being done by an individual, the situation is usually different, as we are allowed to make one copy for backup.
Ok, but how do you square that away with the first office actions on these patents going mostly against Oracle? If stealing is stealing, and if not licensing a patent is stealing, what is the crime when you license a patent and the patent is invalid?
Is the licensor selling stolen goods? Is it fraud? Is it racketeering? What is it? Do you realize that if you pay license fees for a patent which is subsequently invalidated you don't get any of that money back?
The reason why infringing a patent isn't theft is because it's not clear cut, you don't have absolute title to a patent in the way that you do to say your TV set.
We aren't discussing invalid patents here -- or anything that was unclear.
Google had no doubts that the patents were valid and deliberately chose to infringe them.
Claro? Verstehen Sie? Capite?
Ya, know... your posting style, volume of posts, contrarian opinions and ever-changing arguments reminds me of a troll we had on this site, a while back...
That's ridiculous. If someone buys the full rights to a copyrighted work, they have the same rights as the author originally had. If I create a copyrighted work, why shouldn't I be able to sell those rights to someone? One of the rights that a copyright holder has is to dispose of their work as they wish - and your position basically eliminates that right.
What's really ridiculous is that we have a system that allows this. What if the copyright was on an absolute cure for cancer? That patent could be traded back and forth between trolls for years, bidding up the price so that they could get rich while patients languish and die.
Admittedly this is an extreme example, but serves to illustrate the basic absurdity of the current state of patent "protection."
Wait, Google is trying to SUPPRESS information? I thought they were all about open. OPEN! Open always wins! Remember that, Google? What, was that just a saying fabricated to dupe open source zealots?
It's amusing when people go, "Google still isn't evil. Milosevic is evil. Google hasn't committed genocide; therefore, they are not evil." If Milosevic and other brutal dictators are where the line to evil begins, then even Lodsys consists of saints.
Ya, know... your posting style, volume of posts, contrarian opinions and ever-changing arguments reminds me of a troll we had on this site, a while back...
As Charlie Sheen has said, it's all about "winning!"
Ok, but how do you square that away with the first office actions on these patents going mostly against Oracle? If stealing is stealing, and if not licensing a patent is stealing, what is the crime when you license a patent and the patent is invalid?
Is the licensor selling stolen goods? Is it fraud? Is it racketeering? What is it? Do you realize that if you pay license fees for a patent which is subsequently invalidated you don't get any of that money back?
Absurd argument. If I invent something and apply for a patent, which is granted, then I can license it or not. If it turns out that the patent is not valid, then I lose all claims, and can even be sued by those who paid fees to me.
You would really have to show that an assignee knowingly committed fraud when submitting a patent request.
Quote:
The reason why infringing a patent isn't theft is because it's not clear cut, you don't have absolute title to a patent in the way that you do to say your TV set.
That has nothing to do with it. You again fail to understand the law here. Really, why don't you look these things up first?
We aren't discussing invalid patents here -- or anything that was unclear.
Google had no doubts that the patents were valid and deliberate chose to infringe them.
Claro? Verstehen Sie? Capite?
Ya, know... your posting style, volume of posts, contrarian opinions and ever-changing arguments reminds me of a troll we had on this site, a while back...
Wait why do you say that? These patents are currently under review! Google ABSOLUTELY has doubts that they're valid, the USPTO has doubts that they're valid.
I linked to the foss patents articles where the first office actions were discussed. These patents are in no way definitely valid. Most of the first office actions have gone against them.
I'm sorry if you think I'm trolling, but this isn't simple contrariness. While Google is doing very badly right now in the discovery stage of their litigation, they're doing very well in terms of patent invalidation.
Absurd argument. If I invent something and apply for a patent, which is granted, then I can license it or not. If it turns out that the patent is not valid, then I lose all claims, and can even be sued by those who paid fees to me.
You would really have to show that an assignee knowingly committed fraud when submitting a patent request.
You are mistaken. You could only claw back damages that were awarded by a court, if you voluntarily licensed the patent you have no recourse if it is subsequently invalidated. You paid the guy not to sue you, he didn't sue you.
Quote:
That has nothing to do with it. You again fail to understand the law here. Really, why don't you look these things up first?
Wait, you are arguing the law now? I'm explaining why based on your 'everybody knows' moral equivalence argument infringement isn't theft, so naturally I'm not making a legal argument. I don't need to make a legal argument for why patent infringement isn't theft because legally patent infringement isn't theft.
If you come into my apartment and see the television you have every reason to believe that it is a real object and that it belongs to me. Taking it clearly represents theft. But if I am writing software and see you have a patent the situation is totally different. I may have any number of reasons for believing that your patent is invalid, so I go ahead and infringe. This is why infringing isn't morally equivalent.
I argue the law and you accuse me of avoiding the moral issues. I explain why it's morally different and you argue the law. But hey, I'm the guy who twists and turns eh?
I've never said that. I think it's wrong to attack people based on ad hominems for example, though that's not illegal. I don't think that patent infringement is necessarily wrong because I think so many patents are terrible, but it is illegal, it's just not criminal.
As to not being able to throw a company into the pokey, that's true but a felony conviction against a company can frequently destroy it. Arthur Anderson was one example. News Corp may be facing a similar fate if it turns out that the News of the World hacked any US voicemail.
You've said a number of times that because it's civil it's not immoral, meaning that it's not wrong, because if it's wrong, then it's immoral. Unless you don't understand the conjoining of those two concepts?
Quote:
I'm attempting to keep a level of rationality in this discussion which seems otherwise to be lacking.
I will agree that you think you are.
Quote:
Yes so by that argument patent infringement is legally theft because everybody knows theft when they see it? Wait, patent infringement isn't theft, which means that the court thinks that not everybody would think it is.
You just sunk your own battleship.
You can continue to make up your own definitions, if it makes you happy.
Quote:
Except a priori you can't know whether it's valid or not. Which is why infringement isn't morally equivalent to theft, because generally you don't even know if you did infringe a real patent until after the end of the legal fight. Google is certainly wilfully infringing Oracle's patents, but it almost certainly has some plausible case for claiming that they aren't or shouldn't be valid.
Another absurd argument. Where do you come up with these? If a company thinks a patent isn't valid, from their own experts, then they will say so to the company that has the patent, and who is trying to sue them, or otherwise attempting to get them to pay for it. Then the patent office is asked to review those patents. It happens all the time. Why do you try to make it more complicated?
Google has no plausible case here at all, and the judge, who happens to be very respected in this area of law has said so?several times!
Quote:
When did I ever say that valid patents weren't valuable? Never. Why don't you stick with disagreeing with what I say rather than disagreeing with straw men that you claim I believe? Is it just too hard?
"If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee,..."
That's the same as saying the patent has no value. As companies make money from patents, and your theft of that will decrease their income, you've taken from them. That assigns the patent a value, as Google is about to find out, and as Apple found out in their argument with Nokia, where they asserted that Nokia was asking too much, and Nokia said that Apple wanted to pay too little. It ended up somewhere in between.
Wait why do you say that? These patents are currently under review! Google ABSOLUTELY has doubts that they're valid, the USPTO has doubts that they're valid.
I linked to the foss patents articles where the first office actions were discussed. These patents are in no way definitely valid. Most of the first office actions have gone against them.
I'm sorry if you think I'm trolling, but this isn't simple contrariness. While Google is doing very badly right now in the discovery stage of their litigation, they're doing very well in terms of patent invalidation.
No they aren't. As usual, when these suits are instituted, companies use a shotgun approach. Any patents that might affect the case are submitted. Just as usual, most of those patents are thrown out as being irrelevant. Thats what has happened. But the patents that really matter here are not in question. The fact that high executives in Google have discussed the need for a license over a five year period, shows that they know the patents are valid, or they would have been speaking about why they didn't think they were valid instead. So far, not a shred of evidence from Google showing that they ever had doubts about those patents. Not one. If there was evidence, you can bet they would have produced it, because at the very least, it might mitigate against the willful infringement they look to be hit with.
Wait why do you say that? These patents are currently under review! Google ABSOLUTELY has doubts that they're valid, the USPTO has doubts that they're valid.
I linked to the foss patents articles where the first office actions were discussed. These patents are in no way definitely valid. Most of the first office actions have gone against them.
I'm sorry if you think I'm trolling, but this isn't simple contrariness. While Google is doing very badly right now in the discovery stage of their litigation, they're doing very well in terms of patent invalidation.
Please explain this (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Judge Alsup -- the federal judge presiding over this litigation -- attaches a great deal of importance to that particular document. At a recent hearing, he essentially said that a good trial lawyer would just need that document "and the Magna Carta" (arguably the origin of common law) to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully. The judge told Google that "you are going to be on the losing end of this document" with "profound implications for a permanent injunction". Let me add that a finding of willful infringement would not only make an injunction much more likely than otherwise. It can also result in a tripling of whatever damages will be awarded.
You've said a number of times that because it's civil it's not immoral, meaning that it's not wrong, because if it's wrong, then it's immoral. Unless you don't understand the conjoining of those two concepts?
No I said it wasn't theft. If I said what you claim you could quote me saying it, and you can't because I didn't. This is something you do so often it tires me, you misread somebody then argue against what you think they said. Try quoting people, it will save you tons of these errors.
Quote:
You can continue to make up your own definitions, if it makes you happy.
You're the one trying to redefine patent infringement as theft, because 'everybody knows' it's theft, except when we use the phrase 'everybody knows' in a legal way in which case they apparently don't.
Please don't project.
Quote:
Another absurd argument. Where do you come up with these? If a company thinks a patent isn't valid, from their own experts, then they will say so to the company that has the patent, and who is trying to sue them, or otherwise attempting to get them to pay for it. Then the patent office is asked to review those patents. It happens all the time. Why do you try to make it more complicated?
You realize that the patent office is indeed reviewing these patents right? This is a fundamental difference with theft though. If I take the television from your house I have to do more than prove that you don't own it, I have to prove that I do.
Quote:
Google has no plausible case here at all, and the judge, who happens to be very respected in this area of law has said so?several times!
Google has no plausible case if the patents turn out to be valid. That's not been determined yet and Oracle is fighting to ensure that even the first office actions aren't available to the jury. These patents are undergoing review concurrently with the case. Even you aren't so dense as to think that if they're invalidated that google will lose this case.
Quote:
"If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee,..."
That's the same as saying the patent has no value.
No it isn't. It's saying that infringement doesn't subtract value from the patent. A patent's value isn't reduced by infringement since one can litigate to get damages the patent holder can make money from infringement. The value of patents to trolls such as Lodsys is based entirely on infringement. This is fundamentally different from theft. If I steal your television you are absolutely worse off until you can recover it, if I infringe your patent you are generally no worse off, and become better off after winning your case.
If you want to make a 'real world' equivalent to patent infringement it would not be theft but squatting. If I stick up a lemonade stand on vacant land you own I'm not stealing from you, though I'm certainly breaking the law. I'm not directly taking value from you, though once you take me to court you can gain value from me for my transgression that is proportional to the benefit I accrued.
In fact if you stop to think about it you'll see that's yet another difference. Oracle isn't claiming damages based on what they lost, they're claiming damages based on what Google gained. In the case of theft it would be the other way around. Copyright infringement would be much more theft-like in that regards.
If Google is found guilty of wilfully infringing Oracle's patents and proceeding to market this [Android] to 3rd-parties: manufacturers, carriers, resellers, developers, accessory makers, consumers, etc...
Is Google subject to recourse, regardless of the terms of the Android license.
In fact if you stop to think about it you'll see that's yet another difference. Oracle isn't claiming damages based on what they lost, they're claiming damages based on what Google gained. In the case of theft it would be the other way around. Copyright infringement would be much more theft-like in that regards.
Your convoluted logic makes me feel as if I am listening to a Shyster lawyer while seated in the dentist chair.
This case isn't about patent validity, it's about infringement. The court isn't being asked to determine validity, which is being determined concurrently by the USPTO. The judge therefore is only concerned with two questions - did Google infringe the patents and did it do so wilfully. Infringement is often a hard question in its own right and can require significant haggling over what the exact meaning of the patent is (so called claim construction). The judge is saying that given the emails Google has all but already admitted that it does infringe the patents as they are currently written.
The USPTO's first actions on the patents are potentially significant from the perspective of damages and whether the infringement is 'wilful' but Oracle is doing it's best to ensure that those actions are not admitted. It's one of many bones of contention at this stage.
The judge isn't claiming that Google has no case regarding whether the patents are valid, the judge is saying that Google has no convincing way to claim that they do not infringe them if they are.
You are mistaken. You could only claw back damages that were awarded by a court, if you voluntarily licensed the patent you have no recourse if it is subsequently invalidated. You paid the guy not to sue you, he didn't sue you.
You can sue. A jury might find in your favor. They might not.
Quote:
Wait, you are arguing the law now? I'm explaining why based on your 'everybody knows' moral equivalence argument infringement isn't theft, so naturally I'm not making a legal argument. I don't need to make a legal argument for why patent infringement isn't theft because legally patent infringement isn't theft.
If you come into my apartment and see the television you have every reason to believe that it is a real object and that it belongs to me. Taking it clearly represents theft. But if I am writing software and see you have a patent the situation is totally different. I may have any number of reasons for believing that your patent is invalid, so I go ahead and infringe. This is why infringing isn't morally equivalent.
I argue the law and you accuse me of avoiding the moral issues. I explain why it's morally different and you argue the law. But hey, I'm the guy who twists and turns eh?
I said you would argue this. We are talking about two different things, aren't we? Something can be wrong, and immoral, but not be criminal in nature. You don't recognize that, most others do.
No they aren't. As usual, when these suits are instituted, companies use a shotgun approach. Any patents that might affect the case are submitted. Just as usual, most of those patents are thrown out as being irrelevant. Thats what has happened. But the patents that really matter here are not in question. The fact that high executives in Google have discussed the need for a license over a five year period, shows that they know the patents are valid, or they would have been speaking about why they didn't think they were valid instead. So far, not a shred of evidence from Google showing that they ever had doubts about those patents. Not one. If there was evidence, you can bet they would have produced it, because at the very least, it might mitigate against the willful infringement they look to be hit with.
'The seven Java-related patents Oracle asserts are being reexamined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at Google's request, and in five of those reexaminations, "first Office actions" have been issued.'
All seven patents were submitted for reexamination, and so far we have some results for five. How does it stand?
These are all preliminary actions of course, but please tell me which patents you believe Oracle has asserted that are under absolutely no suspicion of invalidity?
You can sue. A jury might find in your favor. They might not.
No, there would need to be a legal precedent. If you can find one where a licensee sued successfully I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think you will because as far as I am aware it is impossible.
Quote:
I said you would argue this. We are talking about two different things, aren't we? Something can be wrong, and immoral, but not be criminal in nature. You don't recognize that, most others do.
Lots of things are immoral but not criminal. Lots of things are criminal but not immoral. I've never said otherwise, though you keep claiming I have. I have only said that I believe that this particular act isn't immoral and that it absolutely isn't theft.
Comments
Theft is evil in every religion, as far as I know. It doesn't matter whether it's criminal or civil. The people doing it are still stealing property that isn't theirs, and they are doing it willfully.
And has been brought up a couple of posts ago, Google has their own definition of evil, and their actions should be measured against the standards they set up for themselves.
People are far less likely to forgive a hypocrite.
You have to pay, you don't have to get permission - different things. And you can record the cover without even paying, you just can't distribute. The point is that Google didn't necessarily need consent to scan the books, because the law there is as yet unclear. It may fall under fair use.
You are wrong again. You must get permission. Now, if you're doing this for yourself, then, well, who's to know? If you record something, but don't release it, then who's to know?
But something isn't recorded commercially without the intent to publish. And so they must get permission, and a license. It's true that the license is almost never withheld, but it can be, and has been.
If you read copyrights, you will see that permission to copy is granted just for the purposes of reviews, a few paragraphs. In order to copy the entire book, you need permission.
If this is being done by an individual, the situation is usually different, as we are allowed to make one copy for backup.
Ok, but how do you square that away with the first office actions on these patents going mostly against Oracle? If stealing is stealing, and if not licensing a patent is stealing, what is the crime when you license a patent and the patent is invalid?
Is the licensor selling stolen goods? Is it fraud? Is it racketeering? What is it? Do you realize that if you pay license fees for a patent which is subsequently invalidated you don't get any of that money back?
The reason why infringing a patent isn't theft is because it's not clear cut, you don't have absolute title to a patent in the way that you do to say your TV set.
We aren't discussing invalid patents here -- or anything that was unclear.
Google had no doubts that the patents were valid and deliberately chose to infringe them.
Claro? Verstehen Sie? Capite?
Ya, know... your posting style, volume of posts, contrarian opinions and ever-changing arguments reminds me of a troll we had on this site, a while back...
That's ridiculous. If someone buys the full rights to a copyrighted work, they have the same rights as the author originally had. If I create a copyrighted work, why shouldn't I be able to sell those rights to someone? One of the rights that a copyright holder has is to dispose of their work as they wish - and your position basically eliminates that right.
What's really ridiculous is that we have a system that allows this. What if the copyright was on an absolute cure for cancer? That patent could be traded back and forth between trolls for years, bidding up the price so that they could get rich while patients languish and die.
Admittedly this is an extreme example, but serves to illustrate the basic absurdity of the current state of patent "protection."
Wait, Google is trying to SUPPRESS information? I thought they were all about open. OPEN! Open always wins! Remember that, Google? What, was that just a saying fabricated to dupe open source zealots?
It's amusing when people go, "Google still isn't evil. Milosevic is evil. Google hasn't committed genocide; therefore, they are not evil." If Milosevic and other brutal dictators are where the line to evil begins, then even Lodsys consists of saints.
Godwin's Law in 3 ... 2 ...
Ya, know... your posting style, volume of posts, contrarian opinions and ever-changing arguments reminds me of a troll we had on this site, a while back...
As Charlie Sheen has said, it's all about "winning!"
Ok, but how do you square that away with the first office actions on these patents going mostly against Oracle? If stealing is stealing, and if not licensing a patent is stealing, what is the crime when you license a patent and the patent is invalid?
Is the licensor selling stolen goods? Is it fraud? Is it racketeering? What is it? Do you realize that if you pay license fees for a patent which is subsequently invalidated you don't get any of that money back?
Absurd argument. If I invent something and apply for a patent, which is granted, then I can license it or not. If it turns out that the patent is not valid, then I lose all claims, and can even be sued by those who paid fees to me.
You would really have to show that an assignee knowingly committed fraud when submitting a patent request.
The reason why infringing a patent isn't theft is because it's not clear cut, you don't have absolute title to a patent in the way that you do to say your TV set.
That has nothing to do with it. You again fail to understand the law here. Really, why don't you look these things up first?
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...s/0300_301.htm
We aren't discussing invalid patents here -- or anything that was unclear.
Google had no doubts that the patents were valid and deliberate chose to infringe them.
Claro? Verstehen Sie? Capite?
Ya, know... your posting style, volume of posts, contrarian opinions and ever-changing arguments reminds me of a troll we had on this site, a while back...
Wait why do you say that? These patents are currently under review! Google ABSOLUTELY has doubts that they're valid, the USPTO has doubts that they're valid.
I linked to the foss patents articles where the first office actions were discussed. These patents are in no way definitely valid. Most of the first office actions have gone against them.
I'm sorry if you think I'm trolling, but this isn't simple contrariness. While Google is doing very badly right now in the discovery stage of their litigation, they're doing very well in terms of patent invalidation.
Absurd argument. If I invent something and apply for a patent, which is granted, then I can license it or not. If it turns out that the patent is not valid, then I lose all claims, and can even be sued by those who paid fees to me.
You would really have to show that an assignee knowingly committed fraud when submitting a patent request.
You are mistaken. You could only claw back damages that were awarded by a court, if you voluntarily licensed the patent you have no recourse if it is subsequently invalidated. You paid the guy not to sue you, he didn't sue you.
That has nothing to do with it. You again fail to understand the law here. Really, why don't you look these things up first?
Wait, you are arguing the law now? I'm explaining why based on your 'everybody knows' moral equivalence argument infringement isn't theft, so naturally I'm not making a legal argument. I don't need to make a legal argument for why patent infringement isn't theft because legally patent infringement isn't theft.
If you come into my apartment and see the television you have every reason to believe that it is a real object and that it belongs to me. Taking it clearly represents theft. But if I am writing software and see you have a patent the situation is totally different. I may have any number of reasons for believing that your patent is invalid, so I go ahead and infringe. This is why infringing isn't morally equivalent.
I argue the law and you accuse me of avoiding the moral issues. I explain why it's morally different and you argue the law. But hey, I'm the guy who twists and turns eh?
As Charlie Sheen has said, it's all about "winning!"
Ha! Exactly! Charlie Sheen -- now, there's a role model for a winner!
I've never said that. I think it's wrong to attack people based on ad hominems for example, though that's not illegal. I don't think that patent infringement is necessarily wrong because I think so many patents are terrible, but it is illegal, it's just not criminal.
As to not being able to throw a company into the pokey, that's true but a felony conviction against a company can frequently destroy it. Arthur Anderson was one example. News Corp may be facing a similar fate if it turns out that the News of the World hacked any US voicemail.
You've said a number of times that because it's civil it's not immoral, meaning that it's not wrong, because if it's wrong, then it's immoral. Unless you don't understand the conjoining of those two concepts?
I'm attempting to keep a level of rationality in this discussion which seems otherwise to be lacking.
I will agree that you think you are.
Yes so by that argument patent infringement is legally theft because everybody knows theft when they see it? Wait, patent infringement isn't theft, which means that the court thinks that not everybody would think it is.
You just sunk your own battleship.
You can continue to make up your own definitions, if it makes you happy.
Except a priori you can't know whether it's valid or not. Which is why infringement isn't morally equivalent to theft, because generally you don't even know if you did infringe a real patent until after the end of the legal fight. Google is certainly wilfully infringing Oracle's patents, but it almost certainly has some plausible case for claiming that they aren't or shouldn't be valid.
Another absurd argument. Where do you come up with these? If a company thinks a patent isn't valid, from their own experts, then they will say so to the company that has the patent, and who is trying to sue them, or otherwise attempting to get them to pay for it. Then the patent office is asked to review those patents. It happens all the time. Why do you try to make it more complicated?
Google has no plausible case here at all, and the judge, who happens to be very respected in this area of law has said so?several times!
When did I ever say that valid patents weren't valuable? Never. Why don't you stick with disagreeing with what I say rather than disagreeing with straw men that you claim I believe? Is it just too hard?
"If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee,..."
That's the same as saying the patent has no value. As companies make money from patents, and your theft of that will decrease their income, you've taken from them. That assigns the patent a value, as Google is about to find out, and as Apple found out in their argument with Nokia, where they asserted that Nokia was asking too much, and Nokia said that Apple wanted to pay too little. It ended up somewhere in between.
Wait why do you say that? These patents are currently under review! Google ABSOLUTELY has doubts that they're valid, the USPTO has doubts that they're valid.
I linked to the foss patents articles where the first office actions were discussed. These patents are in no way definitely valid. Most of the first office actions have gone against them.
I'm sorry if you think I'm trolling, but this isn't simple contrariness. While Google is doing very badly right now in the discovery stage of their litigation, they're doing very well in terms of patent invalidation.
No they aren't. As usual, when these suits are instituted, companies use a shotgun approach. Any patents that might affect the case are submitted. Just as usual, most of those patents are thrown out as being irrelevant. Thats what has happened. But the patents that really matter here are not in question. The fact that high executives in Google have discussed the need for a license over a five year period, shows that they know the patents are valid, or they would have been speaking about why they didn't think they were valid instead. So far, not a shred of evidence from Google showing that they ever had doubts about those patents. Not one. If there was evidence, you can bet they would have produced it, because at the very least, it might mitigate against the willful infringement they look to be hit with.
Wait why do you say that? These patents are currently under review! Google ABSOLUTELY has doubts that they're valid, the USPTO has doubts that they're valid.
I linked to the foss patents articles where the first office actions were discussed. These patents are in no way definitely valid. Most of the first office actions have gone against them.
I'm sorry if you think I'm trolling, but this isn't simple contrariness. While Google is doing very badly right now in the discovery stage of their litigation, they're doing very well in terms of patent invalidation.
Please explain this (emphasis mine):
Judge Alsup -- the federal judge presiding over this litigation -- attaches a great deal of importance to that particular document. At a recent hearing, he essentially said that a good trial lawyer would just need that document "and the Magna Carta" (arguably the origin of common law) to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully. The judge told Google that "you are going to be on the losing end of this document" with "profound implications for a permanent injunction". Let me add that a finding of willful infringement would not only make an injunction much more likely than otherwise. It can also result in a tripling of whatever damages will be awarded.
Oracle and Google keep wrangling over potentially impactful Lindholm draft email
You've said a number of times that because it's civil it's not immoral, meaning that it's not wrong, because if it's wrong, then it's immoral. Unless you don't understand the conjoining of those two concepts?
No I said it wasn't theft. If I said what you claim you could quote me saying it, and you can't because I didn't. This is something you do so often it tires me, you misread somebody then argue against what you think they said. Try quoting people, it will save you tons of these errors.
You can continue to make up your own definitions, if it makes you happy.
You're the one trying to redefine patent infringement as theft, because 'everybody knows' it's theft, except when we use the phrase 'everybody knows' in a legal way in which case they apparently don't.
Please don't project.
Another absurd argument. Where do you come up with these? If a company thinks a patent isn't valid, from their own experts, then they will say so to the company that has the patent, and who is trying to sue them, or otherwise attempting to get them to pay for it. Then the patent office is asked to review those patents. It happens all the time. Why do you try to make it more complicated?
You realize that the patent office is indeed reviewing these patents right? This is a fundamental difference with theft though. If I take the television from your house I have to do more than prove that you don't own it, I have to prove that I do.
Google has no plausible case here at all, and the judge, who happens to be very respected in this area of law has said so?several times!
Google has no plausible case if the patents turn out to be valid. That's not been determined yet and Oracle is fighting to ensure that even the first office actions aren't available to the jury. These patents are undergoing review concurrently with the case. Even you aren't so dense as to think that if they're invalidated that google will lose this case.
"If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee,..."
That's the same as saying the patent has no value.
No it isn't. It's saying that infringement doesn't subtract value from the patent. A patent's value isn't reduced by infringement since one can litigate to get damages the patent holder can make money from infringement. The value of patents to trolls such as Lodsys is based entirely on infringement. This is fundamentally different from theft. If I steal your television you are absolutely worse off until you can recover it, if I infringe your patent you are generally no worse off, and become better off after winning your case.
If you want to make a 'real world' equivalent to patent infringement it would not be theft but squatting. If I stick up a lemonade stand on vacant land you own I'm not stealing from you, though I'm certainly breaking the law. I'm not directly taking value from you, though once you take me to court you can gain value from me for my transgression that is proportional to the benefit I accrued.
In fact if you stop to think about it you'll see that's yet another difference. Oracle isn't claiming damages based on what they lost, they're claiming damages based on what Google gained. In the case of theft it would be the other way around. Copyright infringement would be much more theft-like in that regards.
If Google is found guilty of wilfully infringing Oracle's patents and proceeding to market this [Android] to 3rd-parties: manufacturers, carriers, resellers, developers, accessory makers, consumers, etc...
Is Google subject to recourse, regardless of the terms of the Android license.
Has Google committed fraud?
What about liability to GOOG shareholders?
In fact if you stop to think about it you'll see that's yet another difference. Oracle isn't claiming damages based on what they lost, they're claiming damages based on what Google gained. In the case of theft it would be the other way around. Copyright infringement would be much more theft-like in that regards.
Your convoluted logic makes me feel as if I am listening to a Shyster lawyer while seated in the dentist chair.
Please explain this (emphasis mine):
Oracle and Google keep wrangling over potentially impactful Lindholm draft email
This case isn't about patent validity, it's about infringement. The court isn't being asked to determine validity, which is being determined concurrently by the USPTO. The judge therefore is only concerned with two questions - did Google infringe the patents and did it do so wilfully. Infringement is often a hard question in its own right and can require significant haggling over what the exact meaning of the patent is (so called claim construction). The judge is saying that given the emails Google has all but already admitted that it does infringe the patents as they are currently written.
The USPTO's first actions on the patents are potentially significant from the perspective of damages and whether the infringement is 'wilful' but Oracle is doing it's best to ensure that those actions are not admitted. It's one of many bones of contention at this stage.
The judge isn't claiming that Google has no case regarding whether the patents are valid, the judge is saying that Google has no convincing way to claim that they do not infringe them if they are.
You are mistaken. You could only claw back damages that were awarded by a court, if you voluntarily licensed the patent you have no recourse if it is subsequently invalidated. You paid the guy not to sue you, he didn't sue you.
You can sue. A jury might find in your favor. They might not.
Wait, you are arguing the law now? I'm explaining why based on your 'everybody knows' moral equivalence argument infringement isn't theft, so naturally I'm not making a legal argument. I don't need to make a legal argument for why patent infringement isn't theft because legally patent infringement isn't theft.
If you come into my apartment and see the television you have every reason to believe that it is a real object and that it belongs to me. Taking it clearly represents theft. But if I am writing software and see you have a patent the situation is totally different. I may have any number of reasons for believing that your patent is invalid, so I go ahead and infringe. This is why infringing isn't morally equivalent.
I argue the law and you accuse me of avoiding the moral issues. I explain why it's morally different and you argue the law. But hey, I'm the guy who twists and turns eh?
I said you would argue this. We are talking about two different things, aren't we? Something can be wrong, and immoral, but not be criminal in nature. You don't recognize that, most others do.
No they aren't. As usual, when these suits are instituted, companies use a shotgun approach. Any patents that might affect the case are submitted. Just as usual, most of those patents are thrown out as being irrelevant. Thats what has happened. But the patents that really matter here are not in question. The fact that high executives in Google have discussed the need for a license over a five year period, shows that they know the patents are valid, or they would have been speaking about why they didn't think they were valid instead. So far, not a shred of evidence from Google showing that they ever had doubts about those patents. Not one. If there was evidence, you can bet they would have produced it, because at the very least, it might mitigate against the willful infringement they look to be hit with.
From fosspatents http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...va-patent.html
'The seven Java-related patents Oracle asserts are being reexamined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at Google's request, and in five of those reexaminations, "first Office actions" have been issued.'
All seven patents were submitted for reexamination, and so far we have some results for five. How does it stand?
Well one got completely invalidated http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...acle-java.html
of the other four, almost all the claims that have been reported on have been invalidated
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...e-patents.html
These are all preliminary actions of course, but please tell me which patents you believe Oracle has asserted that are under absolutely no suspicion of invalidity?
You can sue. A jury might find in your favor. They might not.
No, there would need to be a legal precedent. If you can find one where a licensee sued successfully I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think you will because as far as I am aware it is impossible.
I said you would argue this. We are talking about two different things, aren't we? Something can be wrong, and immoral, but not be criminal in nature. You don't recognize that, most others do.
Lots of things are immoral but not criminal. Lots of things are criminal but not immoral. I've never said otherwise, though you keep claiming I have. I have only said that I believe that this particular act isn't immoral and that it absolutely isn't theft.