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

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 138
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    So now it's copy? I thought it was stolen....make up your mind.



    And no I'm saying they didn't steal a damn thing from Oracle...I never mentioned Java.



    And more importantly, whether or not this case is won by Oracle or not, Android was not stolen from Oracle as others have said.



    When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.
  • Reply 82 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.



    interesting... it doesn't matter the topic.



    on every thread you will see someone "in the other side" of the discussion and they are always the same guys. the one that you responded to is one of them. why do you bother?



    your point was obvious but he pretended to miss it. it's always like that. don't bother with him, dr doppio, sloppy, daharder.. you know, the usual.. ignore them and (only if you don't mind) don't quote them. they are so irrational.. when i see situations like this i wonder what's their point. maybe it is funny to look so retarded? this isn't some sort of "name-calling", this is just a fact based on observation and analysis of various discussions. how do you call someone that is almost always wrong, never gives an well thought response, never adds anything of interest but always spams threads with nonsense and stupidity with the purpose of start "bad nonsensical discussion"?
  • Reply 83 of 138
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Florian Mueller's title:



    "Legendary judge hands Apple key patent interpretation victory against Android" (bold text mine)



    AI's title:



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



    All the judge ruled was that Apple's interpretation of "realtime" should be considered, not that their stance on the patent and HTC is correct as a whole. Accepting Apple's definition of realtime makes the patent broader, which in turn makes it easier to be invalidated.



    Apple"won" about the interpretation of realtime, not about the infringement. It could just as easily result in the patent being overthrown. That's all there is to it.
  • Reply 84 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.



    all in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet the lot of you have your minds made up...because you hate Google, because you think you are all doing Steve a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.



    Aight that last part was a bit childish. Point is nothing Oracle/Sun whomever ever owned was like Android, and making Android didn't hurt Oracle/Sun whomever in any way, and this suit is a simple cashgrab and nothing more.



    Apple's suits make sense....the inspiration is obvious and perhaps even went too far in some places...but Oracle is being nothing but greedy and slimey, and everything you lot claim to hate about companies yet here you are, cheering them on...because they are against an imaginary enemy to you.



    The case with Oracle and Google is no where near as cut and dry as people pretend it is here.
  • Reply 85 of 138
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Florian Mueller's title:



    "Legendary judge hands Apple key patent interpretation victory against Android" (bold text mine)



    AI's title:



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



    All the judge ruled was that Apple's interpretation of "realtime" should be considered, not that their stance on the patent and HTC is correct as a whole. Accepting Apple's definition of realtime makes the patent broader, which in turn makes it easier to be invalidated.



    Apple"won" about the interpretation of realtime, not about the infringement. It could just as easily result in the patent being overthrown. That's all there is to it.



    The first case against HTC won based on this definition.



    In HTC's appeal they won because the 6 ITC judges accepted HTC's definition.



    This new decision reaffirms Apple's interpretation as the legally acceptable definition, to be used against both HTC and Motorola who are being sued over this patent.
  • Reply 86 of 138
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


    interesting... it doesn't matter the topic.



    on every thread you will see someone "in the other side" of the discussion and they are always the same guys. the one that you responded to is one of them. why do you bother?



    your point was obvious but he pretended to miss it. it's always like that. don't bother with him, dr doppio, sloppy, daharder.. you know, the usual.. ignore them and (only if you don't mind) don't quote them. they are so irrational.. when i see situations like this i wonder what's their point. maybe it is funny to look so retarded? this isn't some sort of "name-calling", this is just a fact based on observation and analysis of various discussions. how do you call someone that is almost always wrong, never gives an well thought response, never adds anything of interest but always spams threads with nonsense and stupidity with the purpose of start "bad nonsensical discussion"?



    Yup, we all know what they'll say but they make the board colorful I guess.
  • Reply 87 of 138
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The first case against HTC won based on this definition.



    In HTC's appeal they won because the 6 ITC judges accepted HTC's definition.



    This new decision reaffirms Apple's interpretation as the legally acceptable definition, to be used against both HTC and Motorola who are being sued over this patent.



    Yes, but taking the mere definition of "realtime API" as the only factor oversimplifies the issue. The broader the claims of the patent, the easier it is to find someone infringing on it; however, a too broad patent can be invalidated easier as well. In fact, the 6 ITC judge's decision stated that the '263 patent is invalid under Apple's definition of "realtime API". If that decision stays, then it wouldn't matter if HTC is found to infringe on the invalid patent.
  • Reply 88 of 138
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


    Yup, we all know what they'll say ...



    No, you don't.



    Quote:

    ...but they make the board colorful I guess.



    And don't forget -- bring more clicks for AI
  • Reply 89 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


    interesting... it doesn't matter the topic.



    on every thread you will see someone "in the other side" of the discussion and they are always the same guys. the one that you responded to is one of them. why do you bother?



    your point was obvious but he pretended to miss it. it's always like that. don't bother with him, dr doppio, sloppy, daharder.. you know, the usual.. ignore them and (only if you don't mind) don't quote them. they are so irrational.. when i see situations like this i wonder what's their point. maybe it is funny to look so retarded? this isn't some sort of "name-calling", this is just a fact based on observation and analysis of various discussions. how do you call someone that is almost always wrong, never gives an well thought response, never adds anything of interest but always spams threads with nonsense and stupidity with the purpose of start "bad nonsensical discussion"?



    When you call someone out for suggesting Apple must be absolutely retarded to let Schmidt steal the iPhone from Apple (it's been suggested...strongly) then you'll be taken seriously. But considering you have more of a bias than I do everything you say falls under that bias and is likely more retarded than you think.



    I am not name calling I am merely making an observation based on your few posts that have added nothing to any discussion except dickride the majority pov whenever possible. I'm not calling you a retarded yesman but observation suggests such a thing.
  • Reply 90 of 138
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shadash View Post


    Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.



    if its not stole no one has anything to worry about then...but if it is then yeah google acted Evil and should get taken apart by oracle on one side and Apple on the other.
  • Reply 91 of 138
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Yes, but taking the mere definition of "realtime API" as the only factor oversimplifies the issue. The broader the claims of the patent, the easier it is to find someone infringing on it; however, a too broad patent can be invalidated easier as well. In fact, the 6 ITC judge's decision stated that the '263 patent is invalid under Apple's definition of "realtime API". If that decision stays, then it wouldn't matter if HTC is found to infringe on the invalid patent.



    Apart from the decision of the ITC not having much bearing when the real trials (of the patent infringement) start happening, in which case the opinion of the judge in the article makes the decision of the ITC panel so much weaker.



    The ITC is a crapshoot, with willy nilly decisions going all over the place, it's a gamble with a quick "cease and desist" order being the ultimate jackpot, the trouble is, that hardly ever happens.
  • Reply 92 of 138
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Apart from the decision of the ITC not having much bearing when the real trials (of the patent infringement) start happening, in which case the opinion of the judge in the article makes the decision of the ITC panel so much weaker.



    The ITC is a crapshoot, with willy nilly decisions going all over the place, it's a gamble with a quick "cease and desist" order being the ultimate jackpot, the trouble is, that hardly ever happens.



    Absolutely true. The real trials are much slower, hence companies resort to ITC rulings. With this particular patent, a real decision may easily take longer than the lifetime of the patent (expiring in 2014).



    If the patent holds at the ITC, then HTC may be banned from importing their Android products to the US for a while, with Samsung and Windows Phone being the main beneficiaries of that decision.
  • Reply 93 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    Google's internal emails concerning Java seem pretty damning. The emails essential admit Google took Java without permission. That is why Google is fighting like hell to bury the emails. The Judge in the case also pretty much said if the emails are heard by a jury, Google probably is going to be paying a big settlement.



    Google also has history of taking other's information as well. For instance, Yelp. To compete with Yelp, Google just took's Yelp's customer reviews and put them in Google Places.



    FWIW the emails you're referring to are from 2010, after Oracle had filed suit. They were in response to questions posed by the legal team. They indicate that there are no good options to work around Oracle's claims, and so the best path would be to continue with business as usual until it could be determined if Oracle had any case. The emails only are an admittance that they use some IP or copy that Oracle claims a right to, not that the claims are valid.



    Patent-wise they may not have used any Oracle IP as the majority of those claims are falling by the wayside on re-examination and have been deemed invalid in whole or part. It's becoming increasingly possible that any significant success Oracle can hope for is on the copyright front, not patents.
  • Reply 94 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    When talking about COPYrighted material unlawful use of COPYrighted material is stealing.



    That's part of the argument, put forth even by engineers not associated with either company.



    If I remember correctly, there's a total of 37 lines of code (out of millions) that Oracle has found to be a mirror image of what Oracle claims sole rights to. Out of those 37 lines, several aren't actually used in any finished flavor of Android, while some others have no other way of being written and thus not copyright-able according to several software engineers, leaving a tiny number questionable and thus subject to a possible finding of guilt. Possible.



    What Google did via your article's quotes and/or the "Lindholm e-mail" was make it easier for Oracle to come out on top if the claims to the IP are deemed valid to begin with. That hasn't happened yet.
  • Reply 95 of 138
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Speaking as someone who hates Google and purposely avoids all their products ...



    I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about.



    It's not worth taking the thread off course to get into it in detail, but this is basically just the Fox media version of what they were doing. Not actually true.



    Actually, that was more like the truth. If you are saying FOX News reports the truth, then I guess FOX News reports the truth.



    The Google Books project was what woke me up to how ethically challenged Google was. Their definition of "orphaned" was so broad it did a HUGE rights grab to millions of small and indie published works. Their thought that you could copy 20% of an entire book (any 20% so 5 people could get 100%) and call it "fair use" was laughable.
  • Reply 96 of 138
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    all in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet the lot of you have your minds made up...because you hate Google, because you think you are all doing Steve a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.



    Aight that last part was a bit childish. Point is nothing Oracle/Sun whomever ever owned was like Android, and making Android didn't hurt Oracle/Sun whomever in any way, and this suit is a simple cashgrab and nothing more.



    All in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet you have your mind made up...because you love Google, because you think you are all doing Larry a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.



    Allright, that last part was a bit childish but the point is given Sun made money on companies using Java within embedded environments, saying Sun was not harmed by Google's use of Java IP in embedded environments without the required licensing fees, saying Sun was not harmed by Google is very disingenuous.
  • Reply 97 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    All in all nothing is set in stone yet, yet you have your mind made up...because you love Google, because you think you are all doing Larry a favor and he'll award you in the afterlife or something weird.



    Allright, that last part was a bit childish but the point is given Sun made money on companies using Java within embedded environments, saying Sun was not harmed by Google's use of Java IP in embedded environments without the required licensing fees, saying Sun was not harmed by Google is very disingenuous.



    Lol when you see me hang on Larry's every word and treat him like he's a deity then your little flip will be worth a damn. You lot deified Steve.
  • Reply 98 of 138
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    That's part of the argument, put forth even by engineers not associated with either company.



    If I remember correctly, there's a total of 37 lines of code (out of millions) that Oracle has found to be a mirror image of what Oracle claims sole rights to. Out of those 37 lines, several aren't actually used in any finished flavor of Android, while some others have no other way of being written and thus not copyright-able according to several software engineers, leaving a tiny number questionable and thus subject to a possible finding of guilt. Possible.



    What Google did via your article's quotes and/or the "Lindholm e-mail" was make it easier for Oracle to come out on top if the claims to the IP are deemed valid to begin with. That hasn't happened yet.



    The Lindholm email, along with earlier emails from Rubin show that Google's incompatible fork of Java, i.e. Dalvik was not a "clean room" implementation but wholesale copying. as confirmed by the presence of exactly the same lines of code, carried out with full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong, without a license and without the patent/copyright holder's permission.



    Six times they have tried to suppress these emails and six times they have basically been told that cc'ing a lawyer does not entitle them to client lawyer privilege, but still they keep trying because they know these emails present the truth.
  • Reply 99 of 138
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    Lol when you see me hang on Larry's every word and treat him like he's a deity then your little flip will be worth a damn. You lot deified Steve.



    Given most of your posts I have read of yours, you do seem to hang on everything Google does as being right, justified and simply great.
  • Reply 100 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Cue fandroids who argue that Google is the poor, innocent victim here in 3, 2, 1.....



    OK, I'll oblidge.





    But... it's so open!
Sign In or Register to comment.