Looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost for Android, Google's due diligence mustn't have been very good when they threw $12.5 Billion into becoming a patent troll.
I've been curious about how you arrived at a conclusion Google is a patent troll? What defines a patent troll to you?
Like the injunction banning Google's phones that Microsoft won and Google is now appealing?
In case you missed it Motorola Android devices have been banned.
Looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost for Android, Google's due diligence mustn't have been very good when they threw $12.5 Billion into becoming a patent troll.
The injunctions issued in Germany for both Microsoft and Motorola are nothing similar to the conclusion reached by a preliminary injunction. Those cases actually determined infringement, where as a preliminary injunction simply makes a determination based upon an evaluation of 4 criteria with no conclusion on infringement. Is this your "changing the topic" post to deflect from the fact that you inaccurately stated what a preliminary injunction implies?
The injunctions issued in Germany for both Microsoft and Motorola are nothing similar to the conclusion reached by a preliminary injunction. Those cases actually determined infringement, where as a preliminary injunction simply makes a determination based upon an evaluation of 4 criteria with no conclusion on infringement. Is this your "changing the topic" post to deflect from the fact that you inaccurately stated what a preliminary injunction implies?
I am talking about the injunction that came into force in the US yesterday, the one Microsoft won against Google in May regarding scheduling of meetings.
I've been curious about how you arrived at a conclusion Google is a patent troll? What defines a patent troll to you?
Buying up companies for the sole purpose of using IP for litigation.
Using a subsidiary to abuse SEP's.
Shady deals to "rent out" patents to third parties for the sole purpose of litigation, fortunately the court saw through this dodgy deal involving HTC.
Hiring people to make comments like the ones you make in order to convince people Google are not patent trolls with reasonably sounding garbage and attempts to sidetrack discussion of this issue into circular arguments which go nowhere.
So in the UK a judge says Samsung didn't copy the iPad and Apple must apologize to Samsung for claiming it did BUT in the U.S. a judge says that Samsung did copy the iPad and must stop selling their tablet. Have I got that about right?
That is because different countries have different laws. Furthermore, judicial interpretations of statutes vary.
Buying up companies for the sole purpose of using IP for litigation.
Using a subsidiary to abuse SEP's.
Shady deals to "rent out" patents to third parties for the sole purpose of litigation, fortunately the court saw through this dodgy deal involving HTC.
Hiring people to make comments like the ones you make in order to convince people Google are not patent trolls with reasonably sounding garbage and attempts to sidetrack discussion of this issue into circular arguments which go nowhere.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost for Android, Google's due diligence mustn't have been very good when they threw $12.5 Billion into becoming a patent troll.
I've been curious about how you arrived at a conclusion Google is a patent troll? What defines a patent troll to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Like the injunction banning Google's phones that Microsoft won and Google is now appealing?
In case you missed it Motorola Android devices have been banned.
Looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost for Android, Google's due diligence mustn't have been very good when they threw $12.5 Billion into becoming a patent troll.
The injunctions issued in Germany for both Microsoft and Motorola are nothing similar to the conclusion reached by a preliminary injunction. Those cases actually determined infringement, where as a preliminary injunction simply makes a determination based upon an evaluation of 4 criteria with no conclusion on infringement. Is this your "changing the topic" post to deflect from the fact that you inaccurately stated what a preliminary injunction implies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
The injunctions issued in Germany for both Microsoft and Motorola are nothing similar to the conclusion reached by a preliminary injunction. Those cases actually determined infringement, where as a preliminary injunction simply makes a determination based upon an evaluation of 4 criteria with no conclusion on infringement. Is this your "changing the topic" post to deflect from the fact that you inaccurately stated what a preliminary injunction implies?
I am talking about the injunction that came into force in the US yesterday, the one Microsoft won against Google in May regarding scheduling of meetings.
Banned is banned.
The link is Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I've been curious about how you arrived at a conclusion Google is a patent troll? What defines a patent troll to you?
Buying up companies for the sole purpose of using IP for litigation.
Using a subsidiary to abuse SEP's.
Shady deals to "rent out" patents to third parties for the sole purpose of litigation, fortunately the court saw through this dodgy deal involving HTC.
Hiring people to make comments like the ones you make in order to convince people Google are not patent trolls with reasonably sounding garbage and attempts to sidetrack discussion of this issue into circular arguments which go nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
So in the UK a judge says Samsung didn't copy the iPad and Apple must apologize to Samsung for claiming it did BUT in the U.S. a judge says that Samsung did copy the iPad and must stop selling their tablet. Have I got that about right?
That is because different countries have different laws. Furthermore, judicial interpretations of statutes vary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Buying up companies for the sole purpose of using IP for litigation.
Using a subsidiary to abuse SEP's.
Shady deals to "rent out" patents to third parties for the sole purpose of litigation, fortunately the court saw through this dodgy deal involving HTC.
Hiring people to make comments like the ones you make in order to convince people Google are not patent trolls with reasonably sounding garbage and attempts to sidetrack discussion of this issue into circular arguments which go nowhere.
Get your tin foil hats, ladies and gentleman.