Sorry. Sounded as tho you might know. I'm not aware of any monetary payouts yet but not saying there hasn't been one. As far as anyone playing a weasel game I didn't recognize that's what you were doing.
pity, you were making such good progress for a while there. guess it's hard for people to change. The door will remain open if you decide to come back from troll town. we all have off days.
What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Ubuntu's (combined local machine / internet search)?
What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Windows' that search drives connected via LAN?
What is the difference between the patent, and search features like that of iTunes, Spotify and other similar content-distribution systems, where local files (installed / downloaded media) are searched together with remote files (stuff in a store / streamable media)?
Does a claim like 'The method of claim 14 wherein said other heuristic locates Internet web pages' cover 'submit the input to Google and rank items by search result position'? If so, why is this patentable (particularly given that Apple do not provide the backend search mechanism)? If not, what's the difference?
? Thanks in advance.
edit: Two more:
Why does the 'background sync' patent not cover all modern browsers, mail clients, etc. etc?
If you remove the 'one of these is a handheld device' from the background sync patent, does the patent still have any merit? If so, where? If not, why does adding 'on a mobile' make it patentable?
I think there's a minor misunderstanding here - I'm the guy who asked the questions in the first place, not the guy who responded to them. I'm not satisfied with his answers either, which is why I'm looking for alternate opinions.
Also, for the record, I don't have any connection to or expertise with IP law, which is why I was asking those questions in the first place.
Pass the popcorn indeed. You sure sound like a lazy lawyer for Samsung or google .
NOBODY will give you those answers. You will have to do your own work lol 8-)
...so get to work.
I think there's a minor misunderstanding here - I'm the guy who asked the questions in the first place, not the guy who responded to them. I'm not satisfied with his answers either, which is why I'm looking for alternate opinions.
Also, for the record, I don't have any connection to or expertise with IP law, which is why I was asking those questions in the first place.
Got it. Sorry. My response was to peterbob who was going on about how the rest of the world laughs etc. Your questions were perfectly legit.
When you responded to my post, I confused the two of you. Apologies.
surely you have evidence of this Eric Schmidt super spy scenario you've bought into that no one at Apple ever remotely suggested...I'm sure you do...being a lawyer and all.
I've heard that tale so many times yet no one ever has any evidence of it...and hell, the timetables don't really support it at all...Android 1.0 was released nearly 2 years after iPhone announcement and over 2 years after Schmidt was on the board and I'm unsure if you're familiar with Android at all but Android 1.0 was quite possibly the worst thing in the world absent a jailbreak...in fact Android didn't even take off early on and if it wasn't for the marketing campaign for the shitty ugly Moto Droid.
In other wordsyou immediately come across as a know nothing reactive fool when you preface your entire rant with a fabricated story that not even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs mentioned in the least.
He doesn't need hard evidence to have an opinion. Circumstansial evidence, or no evidence at all is fine. Being a lawyer myself, I can tell you it is law school 101 that a corporate officer owes a fiduciary duty to the company whose Board he or she sits on. Simply put, you can't do anything that goes against the interest of the company. Fact is Eric Schmitt resigned from Apple's Board in 2009, nearly two years after the iPhone came out. He was on Apple's Board a year before the iPhone came out. Further, the iPhone began development in 2004. It seems highly unlikely that a member of Apple's board would not be apprised of a bet the company product in development like the iPhone.
Moreover, it seems highly suspect that after Eric Schmitt joined Apple, Google essentially becomes interested in going from just a search related company to an every market Apple is involved in company.
So, his view is valid, and I often wondered the same thing. Why didn't Apple go after Schmitt? Perhaps, Jobs didn't think it was a good move for whatever reason, but from the outside, I wonder why.
That is not a patent on toast, at all. It describes a way to use a high heat source (2500F-4500F) to re-establish conditions that existed toward the beginning of the bread products life, at the cost of reduced mass. So you get a product, but it's slightly smaller and/or lighter (I'm not sure from the patent) bread that consumers will find more fresh or tasteful than it was before the process was applied.
At least that is my take away after reading it. Perhaps my interpretation is off.
Thanks for posting that link. It was an interesting read, none the less.
Just as I had previously stated (somewhere back in my post history about a week ago), this case involves indirect infringement and indemnification by Google of its licensees. I knew that would finally come to the surface in front of the jurors. Should have a positive effect (positive for Apple) on the verdict and award, as the jurors will no longer feel conflicted regarding Samsung being forced to pay for Google's infringement.
According to Re/Code Google's agreement with their licensees has an indemnity clause and likely always has. It's part of their Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. It's not even a secret agreement.
Section 11 for those who'd rather not read more than needed.
Nice indemnification policy they have there. Paying costs for the lawsuits after the fact instead of taking a license to avoid all this in the first place.
My question is, why didn't Google step in when Microsoft went after Android vendors for the stolen IP that Google put in Android? It was just announced that Motorola Solutions (not Mobility) became the 24th Android vendor to settle with Microsoft.
Or does Google "pick and choose" which vendors it will indemnify and how much they will pay on a case-by-case basis? In other words, if you're Samsung then Google will work with you, but if you're HTC they won't (all they did to help HTC was attempt to "loan" them some patents to use against Apple). How so very generous of Google. Too bad it didn't work (for many reasons).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
It was also interesting to read in the Re/Code article that two of the four patents were dropped from the trial before it began and that background sync ('414) and global search ('959) are the only two patents being asserted in this trial. Admittedly I haven't been paying the closest attention to every detail, but that's a pretty big detail that got past me. Any idea why the other two were dropped?
They were dropped last year to pare down the case and have less patents to deal with. Samsung also dropped several patents last year. The bigger news is that Samsung dropped the two SEP's they were asserting against Apple shortly before the trial (likely due to the FTC "monitoring" Samsung over SEP abuse).
Nice indemnification policy they have there. Paying costs for the lawsuits after the fact instead of taking a license to avoid all this in the first place.
My question is, why didn't Google step in when Microsoft went after Android vendors for the stolen IP that Google put in Android? It was just announced that Motorola Solutions (not Mobility) became the 24th Android vendor to settle with Microsoft.
Or does Google "pick and choose" which vendors it will indemnify and how much they will pay on a case-by-case basis? In other words, if you're Samsung then Google will work with you, but if you're HTC they won't (all they did to help HTC was attempt to "loan" them some patents to use against Apple). How so very generous of Google. Too bad it didn't work (for many reasons).
Microsoft has never proven any patents that are infringed by Android have they? I don't believe they'll even discuss what they think might be infringed without first getting a signed NDA. What are they hiding? Sure sounds a bit trollish to issue threats but not identifying what's supposedly infringing. In fact I think that was one of your own "signs of a troll".
Anyway, I thought you'd be happy to see that Google indemnifies it's licensees just as Microsoft does. A week ago you were shouting about how unfair it was to licensees that Google didn't do so. Now you find they do and you still try to complain.
EDIT: Yup, matches up pretty well to the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement HTC signed with Google. So HTC was indemnified too. http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf
Is this your cue to start the personal insults and change the subject?
What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Ubuntu's (combined local machine / internet search)?
What is the difference between the patent, and desktop search features like Windows' that search drives connected via LAN?
What is the difference between the patent, and search features like that of iTunes, Spotify and other similar content-distribution systems, where local files (installed / downloaded media) are searched together with remote files (stuff in a store / streamable media)?
Does a claim like 'The method of claim 14 wherein said other heuristic locates Internet web pages' cover 'submit the input to Google and rank items by search result position'? If so, why is this patentable (particularly given that Apple do not provide the backend search mechanism)? If not, what's the difference?
?
Thanks in advance.
edit: Two more:
Why does the 'background sync' patent not cover all modern browsers, mail clients, etc. etc?
If you remove the 'one of these is a handheld device' from the background sync patent, does the patent still have any merit? If so, where? If not, why does adding 'on a mobile' make it patentable?
You really should ask a patent attorney. It is highly unlikely that anyone here is both knowledgeable enough and willing to explain all this to you. Even if you got a qualified person to answer these questions, I don't see why anybody not directly involved in patent law would invest the time and effort to understand the answers.
Most of the patents covered in his trial should not have been patented as they cover an idea and not an execution.
The difference is that we have an understaffed under funded patent system, where all you need to get a patent is a worth smith. Throw in a few "apparatus" and "hierarchy" make it 20 pages and you could get a patent for anything.
In the rest of the develop world these patents would be laughed out of court and they have.
There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin. You should stop pretending to understand our patent system and quit posting nonsense.
Just as I had previously stated (somewhere back in my post history about a week ago), this case involves indirect infringement and indemnification by Google of its licensees.
Section 11 for those who'd rather not read more than needed.
Exactly. As I have always maintained, Scamsung are just the mindless, fridge making drones, Google is the true evil and should be hoisted on the pitch fork. Perhaps this will come to pass. Excuse me, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi and tend to believe there is justice in the Universe, my bad.
Both Apple and Samsung have dropped patents from this suit. This does not necessarily imply that those patents have no value. What this means is the patents pursued in this were chosen from a group of patents to be the strongest in the original class chosen by each plaintiff. In this suit Apple still has 5 patents that are actively being considered by the jury. Samsung has 2 patents that they bought, at least one of which they already were paid for by other parties and are expecting more payment from Apple.
Apple may get nothing from this suit, but I would not bet on that. This news about Samsung says that Samsung wouldn't bet on it either. Google is the one betting and they have enough money to do so. Whether that bet is good, or honest, or reasonable is for the jury to decide, not the pundits who rarely know what they are talking about.
They were dropped last year to pare down the case and have less patents to deal with. Samsung also dropped several patents last year. The bigger news is that Samsung dropped the two SEP's they were asserting against Apple shortly before the trial (likely due to the FTC "monitoring" Samsung over SEP abuse).
Thanks. I remember that both parties were forced to narrow down how many patents they were suing for, but I thought that Apple narrowed it down to five patents and that slide-to-unlock ('721), autocorrect ('172), and quicklinks ('647) were patents that were included in this trial. So the $2.5 billion in damages that Apple wants is for two patents (background sync ('414) and global search ('959))?
EDIT: DED has answered this in a different thread.
you are a "dumma" as a 100% math guy I admire refers to bluntly as those who are clueless.
read the evidence dumma - its there - you clearly are not.
the fact that a copied product comes out a year - 2 year later is obvious its not stolen?????? you are gibberish .. it takes a long time to fabricate a copy cat type set up like it did Microsoft did you .. dumma.
Jobs messed up - the sleezeball copycat should not have been on the board and Apple should have just sued his A off and Google since they knew what he ripped off and the evidence shows it -
Microsoft has never proven any patents that are infringed by Android have they? I don't believe they'll even discuss what they think might be infringed without first getting a signed NDA. What are they hiding? Sure sounds a bit trollish to issue threats but not identifying what's supposedly infringing. In fact I think that was one of your own "signs of a troll".
Anyway, I thought you'd be happy to see that Google indemnifies it's licensees just as Microsoft does. A week ago you were shouting about how unfair it was to licensees that Google didn't do so. Now you find they do and you still try to complain.
By the way I linked Google's apparently standard contract earlier. Pretty sure they would have the same basic contract terms for all the companies licensing their services. Compare it to the one offered as evidence in the Oracle trial to see if they match.
Is this your cue to start the personal insults and change the subject?
Man, you are so full of crap my monitor stinks. How many times do we have to explain this to you before it finally sinks in?
You actually have the nerve to bring up that last discussion? Good. I'm going to quote it to show everyone just how stupid (ignorant) your obvious trolling comments were. You should be fine with that, since you brought it up, right? Just like in a court, once you open a door the prosecution will pursue it to the end.
Before I get to that, you should have read that document through. You missed a HUGE problem with it that I picked up right away. It only talks about Google Applications. Let me say that word again. Applications. They list all included Applications, but you might recognize some of them: Gmail, Google Maps, Youtube, Google Earth, even Orkut is mentioned.
Did you get that? The actual Android OS itself IS NOT indemnified in that HTC agreement you linked to. Microsoft indemnifies ALL their OS software products.
Excuse me while I dig up your pathetic history on this topic.
Here's that post again. I think this new article warrants a reprint of it:
Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed Indirect Infringement.
First, let's speak about direct infringement:
Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.
Now let's discuss indirect infringement.
If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.
Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages.
Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.
Comments
look it up. No interest in weasel games.
Sorry. Sounded as tho you might know. I'm not aware of any monetary payouts yet but not saying there hasn't been one. As far as anyone playing a weasel game I didn't recognize that's what you were doing.
pity, you were making such good progress for a while there. guess it's hard for people to change. The door will remain open if you decide to come back from troll town. we all have off days.
Pass the popcorn indeed. You sure sound like a lazy lawyer for Samsung or google .
NOBODY will give you those answers. You will have to do your own work lol 8-)
...so get to work.
Got it. Sorry. My response was to peterbob who was going on about how the rest of the world laughs etc. Your questions were perfectly legit.
When you responded to my post, I confused the two of you. Apologies.
No, I wasn't.
I made a mistake in conflating two posters, and I've explained above.
Yea I saw that. My bad.
surely you have evidence of this Eric Schmidt super spy scenario you've bought into that no one at Apple ever remotely suggested...I'm sure you do...being a lawyer and all.
I've heard that tale so many times yet no one ever has any evidence of it...and hell, the timetables don't really support it at all...Android 1.0 was released nearly 2 years after iPhone announcement and over 2 years after Schmidt was on the board and I'm unsure if you're familiar with Android at all but Android 1.0 was quite possibly the worst thing in the world absent a jailbreak...in fact Android didn't even take off early on and if it wasn't for the marketing campaign for the shitty ugly Moto Droid.
In other words you immediately come across as a know nothing reactive fool when you preface your entire rant with a fabricated story that not even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs mentioned in the least.
He doesn't need hard evidence to have an opinion. Circumstansial evidence, or no evidence at all is fine. Being a lawyer myself, I can tell you it is law school 101 that a corporate officer owes a fiduciary duty to the company whose Board he or she sits on. Simply put, you can't do anything that goes against the interest of the company. Fact is Eric Schmitt resigned from Apple's Board in 2009, nearly two years after the iPhone came out. He was on Apple's Board a year before the iPhone came out. Further, the iPhone began development in 2004. It seems highly unlikely that a member of Apple's board would not be apprised of a bet the company product in development like the iPhone.
Moreover, it seems highly suspect that after Eric Schmitt joined Apple, Google essentially becomes interested in going from just a search related company to an every market Apple is involved in company.
So, his view is valid, and I often wondered the same thing. Why didn't Apple go after Schmitt? Perhaps, Jobs didn't think it was a good move for whatever reason, but from the outside, I wonder why.
By chance, did you paste the wrong link?
That is not a patent on toast, at all. It describes a way to use a high heat source (2500F-4500F) to re-establish conditions that existed toward the beginning of the bread products life, at the cost of reduced mass. So you get a product, but it's slightly smaller and/or lighter (I'm not sure from the patent) bread that consumers will find more fresh or tasteful than it was before the process was applied.
At least that is my take away after reading it. Perhaps my interpretation is off.
Thanks for posting that link. It was an interesting read, none the less.
AS
According to Re/Code Google's agreement with their licensees has an indemnity clause and likely always has. It's part of their Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. It's not even a secret agreement.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm
Section 11 for those who'd rather not read more than needed.
Nice indemnification policy they have there. Paying costs for the lawsuits after the fact instead of taking a license to avoid all this in the first place.
My question is, why didn't Google step in when Microsoft went after Android vendors for the stolen IP that Google put in Android? It was just announced that Motorola Solutions (not Mobility) became the 24th Android vendor to settle with Microsoft.
Or does Google "pick and choose" which vendors it will indemnify and how much they will pay on a case-by-case basis? In other words, if you're Samsung then Google will work with you, but if you're HTC they won't (all they did to help HTC was attempt to "loan" them some patents to use against Apple). How so very generous of Google. Too bad it didn't work (for many reasons).
It was also interesting to read in the Re/Code article that two of the four patents were dropped from the trial before it began and that background sync ('414) and global search ('959) are the only two patents being asserted in this trial. Admittedly I haven't been paying the closest attention to every detail, but that's a pretty big detail that got past me. Any idea why the other two were dropped?
They were dropped last year to pare down the case and have less patents to deal with. Samsung also dropped several patents last year. The bigger news is that Samsung dropped the two SEP's they were asserting against Apple shortly before the trial (likely due to the FTC "monitoring" Samsung over SEP abuse).
Microsoft has never proven any patents that are infringed by Android have they? I don't believe they'll even discuss what they think might be infringed without first getting a signed NDA. What are they hiding? Sure sounds a bit trollish to issue threats but not identifying what's supposedly infringing. In fact I think that was one of your own "signs of a troll".
Anyway, I thought you'd be happy to see that Google indemnifies it's licensees just as Microsoft does. A week ago you were shouting about how unfair it was to licensees that Google didn't do so. Now you find they do and you still try to complain.
By the way I linked Google's apparently standard contract earlier. Pretty sure they would have the same basic contract terms for all the companies licensing their services. Compare it to the one offered as evidence in the Oracle trial to see if they match.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm
EDIT: Yup, matches up pretty well to the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement HTC signed with Google. So HTC was indemnified too.
http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf
Is this your cue to start the personal insults and change the subject?
?
Thanks in advance.
edit: Two more:
You really should ask a patent attorney. It is highly unlikely that anyone here is both knowledgeable enough and willing to explain all this to you. Even if you got a qualified person to answer these questions, I don't see why anybody not directly involved in patent law would invest the time and effort to understand the answers.
Most of the patents covered in his trial should not have been patented as they cover an idea and not an execution.
The difference is that we have an understaffed under funded patent system, where all you need to get a patent is a worth smith. Throw in a few "apparatus" and "hierarchy" make it 20 pages and you could get a patent for anything.
see this masterful patent on toast: http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436
In the rest of the develop world these patents would be laughed out of court and they have.
There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin. You should stop pretending to understand our patent system and quit posting nonsense.
Yes you did.
Exactly. As I have always maintained, Scamsung are just the mindless, fridge making drones, Google is the true evil and should be hoisted on the pitch fork. Perhaps this will come to pass. Excuse me, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi and tend to believe there is justice in the Universe, my bad.
Apple may get nothing from this suit, but I would not bet on that. This news about Samsung says that Samsung wouldn't bet on it either. Google is the one betting and they have enough money to do so. Whether that bet is good, or honest, or reasonable is for the jury to decide, not the pundits who rarely know what they are talking about.
Thanks. I remember that both parties were forced to narrow down how many patents they were suing for, but I thought that Apple narrowed it down to five patents and that slide-to-unlock ('721), autocorrect ('172), and quicklinks ('647) were patents that were included in this trial. So the $2.5 billion in damages that Apple wants is for two patents (background sync ('414) and global search ('959))?
EDIT: DED has answered this in a different thread.
you are a "dumma" as a 100% math guy I admire refers to bluntly as those who are clueless.
read the evidence dumma - its there - you clearly are not.
the fact that a copied product comes out a year - 2 year later is obvious its not stolen?????? you are gibberish .. it takes a long time to fabricate a copy cat type set up like it did Microsoft did you .. dumma.
Jobs messed up - the sleezeball copycat should not have been on the board and Apple should have just sued his A off and Google since they knew what he ripped off and the evidence shows it -
Microsoft has never proven any patents that are infringed by Android have they? I don't believe they'll even discuss what they think might be infringed without first getting a signed NDA. What are they hiding? Sure sounds a bit trollish to issue threats but not identifying what's supposedly infringing. In fact I think that was one of your own "signs of a troll".
Anyway, I thought you'd be happy to see that Google indemnifies it's licensees just as Microsoft does. A week ago you were shouting about how unfair it was to licensees that Google didn't do so. Now you find they do and you still try to complain.
By the way I linked Google's apparently standard contract earlier. Pretty sure they would have the same basic contract terms for all the companies licensing their services. Compare it to the one offered as evidence in the Oracle trial to see if they match.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix380/1495569/000119312510271362/dex1012.htm
EDIT: Yup, matches up pretty well to the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement HTC signed with Google. So HTC was indemnified too.
http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf
Is this your cue to start the personal insults and change the subject?
Man, you are so full of crap my monitor stinks. How many times do we have to explain this to you before it finally sinks in?
You actually have the nerve to bring up that last discussion? Good. I'm going to quote it to show everyone just how stupid (ignorant) your obvious trolling comments were. You should be fine with that, since you brought it up, right? Just like in a court, once you open a door the prosecution will pursue it to the end.
Before I get to that, you should have read that document through. You missed a HUGE problem with it that I picked up right away. It only talks about Google Applications. Let me say that word again. Applications. They list all included Applications, but you might recognize some of them: Gmail, Google Maps, Youtube, Google Earth, even Orkut is mentioned.
Did you get that? The actual Android OS itself IS NOT indemnified in that HTC agreement you linked to. Microsoft indemnifies ALL their OS software products.
Excuse me while I dig up your pathetic history on this topic.
Here's that post again. I think this new article warrants a reprint of it:
Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed Indirect Infringement.
First, let's speak about direct infringement:
Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.
Now let's discuss indirect infringement.
If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.
Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages.
Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.