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

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 138
    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.



    This is the reason you figure so prominently on so many ignore lists. It doesn't matter who hangs on who's words, and dismissing the rest of the board here with "you all deify Steve Jobs" as a means of ignoring the factual arguments along with the opinions is simply behaving like an advocate of Google/Android. It is a classic debating tactic, and one that anyone with an actual command of the facts doesn't have to use.



    The fact remains that for Posner to have registered this decision gives Apple a stronger case than an ITC decision would have. Any win by Apple against the Android platform, whatever your preference, further erodes the viability of Android in the marketplace. Google is going to look at Android carefully as things move forward, and probably already has an exit strategy in place to retire Android. I submit that Google makes more money off of ads via iPhone than it does via ads on Android (speculative on my part, not factual).



    It is also a fact that ironically, Microsoft is making more capital off the Android than Google - a fact that can't be lost on either Google or the handset makers who are paying Microsoft for both Android and licensing Windows Mobile. Microsoft will continue to erode Android as well, since it was Android that made the biggest hit on Windows Mobile marketshare.



    In the end the actual net win/loss tally will matter less than which key patents and copyright cases end up owning the most licensing fees and which will be declared standards-based and disallowed from avoiding F/RAND.
  • Reply 102 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Sure it is - that's information from a number of sources. Google's plan was to make every printed work ever done available on the Internet via their servers - with or without the author's permission.



    For example:

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...-copyright-law



    or

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/te...gy/21book.html



    Although it's not clear how in the world Google would think that fair use would allow them to copy entire works without permission.



    That was (fortunately) shot down, so they went to Congress and tried to get permission to do it if they set up some kind of fund to reimburse authors via some kind of payment schedule that they dreamed up. They were going to allow for 'opt out', but an author who was not familiar with Google's scheme would have had their work included without permission.





    But feel free to provide facts to refute that.



    None of this proves or indicates that the original statement made (that Google *intentionally* went out to "copy every book in the world" *expressly* without "the copyright holders permission.")



    The articles pointed to are all about the reaction to what they did and how what they did was seen and described to congress by the publishers.
  • Reply 103 of 138
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post


    ...

    It is also a fact that ironically, Microsoft is making more capital off the Android than Google - a fact that can't be lost on either Google or the handset makers who are paying Microsoft for both Android and licensing Windows Mobile. Microsoft will continue to erode Android as well, since it was Android that made the biggest hit on Windows Mobile marketshare.



    In the end the actual net win/loss tally will matter less than which key patents and copyright cases end up owning the most licensing fees and which will be declared standards-based and disallowed from avoiding F/RAND.



    True. Google losing money on Android is the biggest threat to Android, much bigger than patent threats or competing products. Better OSes than Android have become marginalized due to lack of enough commercial appeal and thus discontinued support...
  • Reply 104 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    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.



    You may be aware of only a select part of what this is all about going by your comments. The Oracle copyright claims are far from solid, widely disputed in the open-source community, and questioned by a number of software engineers. There's places that good discussion of the points both Google and Oracle are trying to make are discussed. If you're really interested in what's going on and not simply spinning the parts you like, you should take the time to visit these if you haven't already, paying particular attention to the comments:



    http://mrpogson.com/2011/09/13/oracl...mes-to-a-boil/

    http://www.osnews.com/story/23959/Or...So_Fast_Though



    There's also a fairly easy to understand explanation here:

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...ail-android/2/

    and probably the most complete explanations here:

    http://www.groklaw.net/



    There's also a Supreme Court decision from 5 years ago where Microsoft itself may actually be contributing to Google's fair use of Java elements argument.

    http://betanews.com/2007/04/30/micro...ng-overturned/



    All in all it's a very involved lawsuit with a whole lot of unanswered questions about what is or isn't patentable or subject to copyright. The multiple Oracle attempts at presenting an estimate of damages is a whole 'nuther circus.
  • Reply 105 of 138
    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.



    The ITC is more reluctant than a federal court to actually make declarations about the (in)validity of a patent. The initial ITC ruling was based on an assumption that the patent was valid at face value. However, on appeal, the ITC panel stated that if they had followed Apple's interpretation, they would have been inclined to rule that the patent was invalid. Instead, they decided to adopt an alternate interpretation, so that they could allow the patent to remain valid and still rule against Apple.



    So, now a federal judge has stated that Apple's interpretation is the correct one to apply when reading the patent. Now, we have to go back and determine whether or not, under Apple's interpretation, the patent still stands up to the test of validity.
  • Reply 106 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


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



    Given that copying kills the market for the copyrighted work, some might say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is murder.



    Then again, those who use words within their common meanings say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is infringement.



    But stealing sounds more evil.
  • Reply 107 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Given that copying kills the market for the copyrighted work, some might say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is murder.



    Then again, those who use words within their common meanings say that unlawful use of COPYrighted material is infringement.



    But stealing sounds more evil.



    my point.
  • Reply 108 of 138
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    The ITC is more reluctant than a federal court to actually make declarations about the (in)validity of a patent. The initial ITC ruling was based on an assumption that the patent was valid at face value. However, on appeal, the ITC panel stated that if they had followed Apple's interpretation, they would have been inclined to rule that the patent was invalid. Instead, they decided to adopt an alternate interpretation, so that they could allow the patent to remain valid and still rule against Apple.



    So, now a federal judge has stated that Apple's interpretation is the correct one to apply when reading the patent. Now, we have to go back and determine whether or not, under Apple's interpretation, the patent still stands up to the test of validity.



    Thank you for clarifying this, I made two attempts to do it earlier in the thread but it seemed that my message didn't get through.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    ... 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 109 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    None of this proves or indicates that the original statement made (that Google *intentionally* went out to "copy every book in the world" *expressly* without "the copyright holders permission.")



    The articles pointed to are all about the reaction to what they did and how what they did was seen and described to congress by the publishers.



    Read the articles.



    Google very clearly went about a program called "Google Print". Their goal was to make the entire world's printed resources available via the web. The articles I cited affirmed that Google did not intend to get the authors' permission.



    What more do you need?
  • Reply 110 of 138
    Pay up, thieves. Google, get your checkbook ready.
  • Reply 111 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post


    This is the reason you figure so prominently on so many ignore lists. It doesn't matter who hangs on who's words, and dismissing the rest of the board here with "you all deify Steve Jobs" as a means of ignoring the factual arguments along with the opinions is simply behaving like an advocate of Google/Android. It is a classic debating tactic, and one that anyone with an actual command of the facts doesn't have to use.



    Few anti-Google posts have any attempts at objectivity...you'll notice that I have never ever spoken ill of Apple as a whole even though there are elements about the company and the eco-system I do not like.



    Most of my anti-whatever posts are geared towards the iPhanboys who, no matter what, see Apple as rosie...period...and that anything that merely competes with Apple, even if barely, is automatically wrong and must be destroyed, bought out, deleted, absorbed, etc...



    The people I speak against are the ones who begin a point with "Well Steve said." Even though they should know by now that just because Steve says something doesn't mean it's true. He said a lot of things, and a lot of things were wrong, and a lot were right.



    I'd be a fool if I didn't see Steve as a great man...but thinking as I think I see him as nothing more than a man in the end...he lived a man, he died a man. There is nothing sufficiently special about him, he had the right ideas at the right time (remember, those same ideas almost bit him in the rear when it was the wrong time).



    There are a handful of posters here who, judging from their comments, actually knew him, and those are the people whose postings about him in a personal sense are respected.



    Those who only knew him as the great leader, as a speaker, as a quote giver, as a CEO and perhaps one of the best UX minds ever, etc and who "STEVE I MISS YOU" over and over and over and over ad nauseum, and can see no fault in this man, and assume because it was said it must be true...are the ones I am speaking about.



    No one has presented any real facts about Google's cases...no one knows any facts about Googles cases...we have interpretations of interpretations of interpretations...and being that I am anti-software patent nothing can change that stance unless it can be explained to me why an idea, I mean an "implementation of a method" can be patented without code and how a vastly different code that results in something that looks different and acts different except for maybe a small area where some patented "and/or" was infringed (or "stolen" on this board) can be banned indefinitely.



    The Slide-to-unlock super broad patent, the stupid coverflow crap that I think Apple thankfully got overturned, etc etc.



    I mean ONE-CLICK is patented...one click...that is by far the stupidest one yet.



    Anywho...no one here thinks like that though (it seems) all they see is XX v. Apple? WELL FUCK XX!!!!!!



    No real thought, no real reason why they side with Apple...the entire position is rather irrational...



    Apple is always right...except maybe someone doesn't like an icon in an app update...but anything beyond that Apple is always right.



    There was a time when I was young and I would get REAL happy at what competing companies were doing, because that meant that everyone would be in a mad dash to one up each other...and the results were awesome...Genesis, N64, Playstation, Xbox, Faster processors, better monitors, laser mice, better keyboards, etc...



    I saw all that change when Apple came back (and boy did they come back)...now I see a bunch of people wishing for the end of many companies. Wishing for a world devoid of choice...and that's weird to me.



    I was raised on Macs, I've always liked mac, but I use windows because I prefer it...



    I always suggest iPhones to most friends who wish for a phone because honestly, Android until the GNex really wasn't up to par IMO (phones were, OS wasn't)



    iPad if you want a tablet...etc.



    I am no enemy of Apple...never was...I just do not agree with their patent blitzkrieg. I do not see it as being anything but bad for the future of tech.



    Like I say...Apple...a great friend to innovation, an enemy of progress. (which is easily debatable I know)
  • Reply 112 of 138
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    No one has presented any real facts about Google's cases...no one knows any facts about Googles cases...we have interpretations of interpretations of interpretations...and being that I am anti-software patent nothing can change that stance unless it can be explained to me why an idea, I mean an "implementation of a method" can be patented without code and how a vastly different code that results in something that looks different and acts different except for maybe a small area where some patented "and/or" was infringed (or "stolen" on this board) can be banned indefinitely.



    Actually, there have been lots of real facts presented against Google in various cases. This includes wholesale hijacking of copyrighted books and placing them on the internet because they were "orphaned" works when in reality they were from small or independent publishers. Basically, Google was too lazy to search for the copyright holder and calling it "orphaned" is so much easier. Who cares if it destroys part of the revenue stream of a small author? Google got to serve more advertisements.



    Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. These have been entered into record. There are examples of files provided as test files and no rights to re-distribute. Google did re-distribute the files (though this is more of a basic muck up accident but it points to a greater trend of carelessness). These are also entered into record.



    The facts are out there. You simply refuse to accept them because you don't believe that software should by protected. Apple found out that software and UI design is not protected by copyright 20 years ago when they went against MS. They were informed had the methods been patented, they would have been protected. Look where we are now.



    Sorry you do not believe people should be able to protect their hard work (and writing quality software is hard work) to protect the methods they "invent" from being copied wholesale by others. But you can. Do I think there needs to be some serious reform in that area? Heck yes. Shorter spans for both patents and copyright. Do I think you have to have skin in the game to make a claim (I detest "IP" holding companies)? Heck yes. Do I hope Cook will be more pragmatic and simply sign some licensing deals and go on with making great products? Heck yes. Do I think Apple would be a great place to work? Only if I was 22 years old and had no life. It defines pressure cooker.
  • Reply 113 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    Actually, there have been lots of real facts presented against Google in various cases. This includes wholesale hijacking of copyrighted books and placing them on the internet because they were "orphaned" works when in reality they were from small or independent publishers. Basically, Google was too lazy to search for the copyright holder and calling it "orphaned" is so much easier. Who cares if it destroys part of the revenue stream of a small author? Google got to serve more advertisements.



    Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. These have been entered into record. There are examples of files provided as test files and no rights to re-distribute. Google did re-distribute the files (though this is more of a basic muck up accident but it points to a greater trend of carelessness). These are also entered into record.



    The facts are out there. You simply refuse to accept them because you don't believe that software should by protected. Apple found out that software and UI design is not protected by copyright 20 years ago when they went against MS. They were informed had the methods been patented, they would have been protected. Look where we are now.



    Sorry you do not believe people should be able to protect their hard work (and writing quality software is hard work) to protect the methods they "invent" from being copied wholesale by others. But you can. Do I think there needs to be some serious reform in that area? Heck yes. Shorter spans for both patents and copyright. Do I think you have to have skin in the game to make a claim (I detest "IP" holding companies)? Heck yes. Do I hope Cook will be more pragmatic and simply sign some licensing deals and go on with making great products? Heck yes. Do I think Apple would be a great place to work? Only if I was 22 years old and had no life. It defines pressure cooker.



    While most of what you say is accurate, the bolded is not quite. While the facts are mostly correct (that Google decided to publish a great deal of copyrighted work on the Internet), their rationalization was not that the works were orphaned, but rather that they were permitted to do so because of Fair Use Doctrine (see the URL earlier in this thread).



    That is, of course, completely bogus. It has been well established that Fair Use would not allow you to copy entire works - other than very unusual and specific circumstances that don't apply here.
  • Reply 114 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    Actually, there have been lots of real facts presented against Google in various cases. This includes wholesale hijacking of copyrighted books and placing them on the internet because they were "orphaned" works when in reality they were from small or independent publishers. Basically, Google was too lazy to search for the copyright holder and calling it "orphaned" is so much easier. Who cares if it destroys part of the revenue stream of a small author? Google got to serve more advertisements.



    Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. These have been entered into record. There are examples of files provided as test files and no rights to re-distribute. Google did re-distribute the files (though this is more of a basic muck up accident but it points to a greater trend of carelessness). These are also entered into record.



    The facts are out there. You simply refuse to accept them because you don't believe that software should by protected. Apple found out that software and UI design is not protected by copyright 20 years ago when they went against MS. They were informed had the methods been patented, they would have been protected. Look where we are now.



    Sorry you do not believe people should be able to protect their hard work (and writing quality software is hard work) to protect the methods they "invent" from being copied wholesale by others. But you can. Do I think there needs to be some serious reform in that area? Heck yes. Shorter spans for both patents and copyright. Do I think you have to have skin in the game to make a claim (I detest "IP" holding companies)? Heck yes. Do I hope Cook will be more pragmatic and simply sign some licensing deals and go on with making great products? Heck yes. Do I think Apple would be a great place to work? Only if I was 22 years old and had no life. It defines pressure cooker.



    Though we do disagree on some points I must say I do like you now. Cheers.
  • Reply 115 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    Likewise, Android has been shown to have about 100 files that look to have been decompiled from Sun's Java source and had a new header slapped on them. . .

    The facts are out there..



    Oracle says there's 37 files that have copied elements in whole or part, including some headers.



    Quote: "Notably, Google requires its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- including the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle ─ to prevent fragmentation of the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is similar to Java's, Oracle said."



    This is a good rundown of Oracle's claim:

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....11102807400645
  • Reply 116 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Oracle says there's 37 files that have copied elements in whole or part, including some headers.



    Quote: "Notably, Google requires its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- including the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle ─ to prevent fragmentation of the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is similar to Java's, Oracle said."



    You are incorrect. Oracle said that Google copied 37 APIs. That does not say how many files contained copied information.
  • Reply 117 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You are incorrect. Oracle said that Google copied 37 APIs. That does not say how many files contained copied information.



    Thank you, I stand corrected. So Oracle claimed 100 files as StevenN says?
  • Reply 118 of 138
    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.



    How about Moto suing apple using google patents, make up your mind.
  • Reply 119 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Thank you, I stand corrected. So Oracle claimed 100 files as StevenN says?



    I don't have any idea. Ask StevenN.



    I was just pointing out that your 'rebuttal' was wrong.
  • Reply 120 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I don't have any idea. Ask StevenN.



    I was just pointing out that your 'rebuttal' was wrong.



    Which I appreciated. . .



    EDIT: Here we go, from the actual court docs:

    "Oracle’s Opposition concedes that, with the exception of portions of 12 out of several thousand files, it has no evidence of any copying by Google of any Oracle source code. Aside from those 12 files, Oracle’s copyright claim is premised on “non-literal” infringement and the incorrect notion that the Java language APIs—separate and apart from their implementations, which Google did not copy—are copyrightable."

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....10902071933374



    So it appears there's 12 files at issue, not either 100 or 37 as two of us thought we recalled. The Oracle/Google claims seem to change nearly every week, so there's no certainty that it's still 12. I know the number of patent claims has been severely trimmed due to both the court and patent re-exams indicating they weren't valid to begin with..
Sign In or Register to comment.