Google, T-Mobile petition ITC to allow Android to freely infringe Apple's iOS
While delaying the launch of Android 4.0 in the wake of Steve Jobs' passing, Google has filed an amicus curiae brief in parallel with US carrier T-Mobile, both of whom ask that the International Trade Commission not ban HTC's Android products, regardless of their infringement of Apple's intellectual property.
The filings clearly acknowledge that Apple isn't simply seeking royalties from Android licensees to cover patent infringement in the manner Microsoft has.
Instead, according to a report by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller, Google threatens that "eliminating all of the major Android device manufacturers from the U.S.?as Apple is attempting?would allow Apple to establish a virtual monopoly in the mobile device industry."
Google specifically states that "excluding HTC Android devices from the U.S. would threaten the only open mobile platform developed and distributed in the U.S.," without clarifying that the primary value of HTC's Android products come from layers of proprietary software owned by Google and HTC, neither of which are any more open than Apple's iPhone iOS, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 or RIM's BlackBerry OS.
T-Mobile seeks transition period from Android
T-Mobile 14 page brief to the court "asks the ITC to deny an import ban even if an infringement is found," Mueller reports, adding that the carrier recommends a transition period of four to six months if the ITC does decide to ban HTC's infringing phones.
With such a transition period, "T-Mobile and the rest of the industry could change to other devices without harming U.S. consumers," the carrier notes, without disputing that HTC's Android products are indeed infringing upon Apple's intellectual property.
Google, unsurprisingly, is not at all interested in accommodating a transition period that would favor non-infringing alternatives to Android, and opposes a ban of any kind in its own 80 page brief.
Google alarmed by iPhone's success
Google doesn't argue that Android isn't infringing Apple's technology, however. Instead, it warns that a ban would "eliminate the competition from a fast-moving, maverick competitor (HTC)," a shift that "could drive up prices, diminish service, decrease consumers' access to the technology, and reduce innovation."
Google also states that "Apple is the largest seller of mobile computing devices in the U.S.," a far different tune than it played last year when it portrayed Android as an unstoppable force that would steamroll Apple's smartphone with a superior product offered by a wide range of hardware makers, with unique support for Adobe's proprietary Flash.
Google's brief concludes that a preliminary injunction against the four HTC phones Apple claims to be infringing would "likely raise the price of mobile devices to U.S. consumers, diminish the variety of devices available, lower the number of consumers that have access to the critical public health and welfare benefits of mobile computing, reduce innovation in the mobile device industry, reduce the development of critical wireless network infrastructure, lower the number of mobile applications created, raise barriers to entry, and threaten the only open mobile computing platform."
Mueller notes, "All of that sounds great, but I doubt that it will persuade the ITC that patent infringement can be justified with the benefits of a competitive marketplace.
"There needs to be a balance between intellectual property and competition, and neither Google's nor T-Mobile's statement says how and where that balance should be struck. Both just advocate a free pass for Android."
The filings clearly acknowledge that Apple isn't simply seeking royalties from Android licensees to cover patent infringement in the manner Microsoft has.
Instead, according to a report by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller, Google threatens that "eliminating all of the major Android device manufacturers from the U.S.?as Apple is attempting?would allow Apple to establish a virtual monopoly in the mobile device industry."
Google specifically states that "excluding HTC Android devices from the U.S. would threaten the only open mobile platform developed and distributed in the U.S.," without clarifying that the primary value of HTC's Android products come from layers of proprietary software owned by Google and HTC, neither of which are any more open than Apple's iPhone iOS, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 or RIM's BlackBerry OS.
T-Mobile seeks transition period from Android
T-Mobile 14 page brief to the court "asks the ITC to deny an import ban even if an infringement is found," Mueller reports, adding that the carrier recommends a transition period of four to six months if the ITC does decide to ban HTC's infringing phones.
With such a transition period, "T-Mobile and the rest of the industry could change to other devices without harming U.S. consumers," the carrier notes, without disputing that HTC's Android products are indeed infringing upon Apple's intellectual property.
Google, unsurprisingly, is not at all interested in accommodating a transition period that would favor non-infringing alternatives to Android, and opposes a ban of any kind in its own 80 page brief.
Google alarmed by iPhone's success
Google doesn't argue that Android isn't infringing Apple's technology, however. Instead, it warns that a ban would "eliminate the competition from a fast-moving, maverick competitor (HTC)," a shift that "could drive up prices, diminish service, decrease consumers' access to the technology, and reduce innovation."
Google also states that "Apple is the largest seller of mobile computing devices in the U.S.," a far different tune than it played last year when it portrayed Android as an unstoppable force that would steamroll Apple's smartphone with a superior product offered by a wide range of hardware makers, with unique support for Adobe's proprietary Flash.
Google's brief concludes that a preliminary injunction against the four HTC phones Apple claims to be infringing would "likely raise the price of mobile devices to U.S. consumers, diminish the variety of devices available, lower the number of consumers that have access to the critical public health and welfare benefits of mobile computing, reduce innovation in the mobile device industry, reduce the development of critical wireless network infrastructure, lower the number of mobile applications created, raise barriers to entry, and threaten the only open mobile computing platform."
Mueller notes, "All of that sounds great, but I doubt that it will persuade the ITC that patent infringement can be justified with the benefits of a competitive marketplace.
"There needs to be a balance between intellectual property and competition, and neither Google's nor T-Mobile's statement says how and where that balance should be struck. Both just advocate a free pass for Android."
Comments
What really blows here is that Android had the makings of a really decent iPhone competitor but instead took a turn towards theft. No body at Google should be proud of what Android has become. Rather they should be embarrassed and ashamed that they took the route of the common criminal.
Rather they should be embarrassed and ashamed that they took the route of the common criminal.
After the unveiling of the first production release of Android, one of the higher-ups at Google reportedly whispered in horror to Eric Schmidt:
"We have become Microsoft, destroyer of IP?"
*Note: this is not meant to be taken as insider information as to what may or may not have actually been said at the first unveiling of the first version of Android.
?This is the same tactic we?ve seen time and again from Microsoft. Failing to succeed in the smartphone market, they are resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others? achievements and hinder the pace of innovation. We remain focused on building new technology and supporting Android partners.?
They don't deny that Android infringes but rather jumps to the straw man argument of they cant compete so this is why they are doing x,y,z
First, it pretty much makes all injunctions, regardless of validity, completely useless.
Second, by doing it on grounds of accused monopolies, rather than defending their own work, this is pretty much giving Apple the keys to an easy win.
"Please sir, I know I coped from Tim in the exam and all, but if you fail me for that you will allow Jason a monopoly on A grades which threatens the future labour market enormously by limiting the choice of highly-qualified candidates!"
This sets a very dangerous precedent.
First, it pretty much makes all injunctions, regardless of validity, completely useless.
Second, by doing it on grounds of accused monopolies, rather than defending their own work, this is pretty much giving Apple the keys to an easy win.
Very well said
While delaying the launch of Android 4.0 in the wake of Steve Jobs' passing, Google has filed an amicus curiae brief in parallel with US carrier T-Mobile, both of whom ask that the International Trade Commission not ban HTC's Android products, regardless of their infringement of Apple's intellectual property.
Let the wild hate fest begin!
First, it pretty much makes all injunctions, regardless of validity, completely useless.
Oops! Until this remark, you were a shoe-in for the next Supreme Court vacancy.
Let the wild hate fest begin!
Google sucks.
Seriously though, out of all the legal moves Google has to play, this is the best they can do?
Oops! Until this remark, you were a shoe-in for the next Supreme Court vacancy.
I really can't tell if you're supporting my statement by referring to the ineptitude of the Supreme Court of the US, or opposing and saying that this wouldn't constitute precedent for other injunction cases.
I wonder what happened to "we're going to hold off on doing things out of respect for Steve Jobs"?
It lives on...in your imagination.
I thought banning Samsung phones was putting the public at risk.
HTC can replace Samsung handsets in that argument, Samsung can replace HTC handsets in this one.
Then what of the American patents Google obtained from Motorola and Palm and gave to HTC in Taiwan, how is giving American innovations to foreign companies benefitting American consumers?
The patents HTC bought from S3 and VIA are they "harming American consumers" by seeking to ban iPhone sales?
Google was pretty good when they first came out of Stanford, they provide a classic example of how money and power corrupts, it has turned them into hypocritical pedlars of any user data they can gather to sell to advertisers.
They have one goal similar to Microsoft's "Windows on every desktop" and that is "Google on every Internet connected device, watching, gathering, selling".
I really can't tell if you're supporting my statement by referring to the ineptitude of the Supreme Court of the US, or opposing and saying that this wouldn't constitute precedent for other injunction cases.
Neither. While it may be a precedent in certain situations, it most certainly would not "make[] all injunctions, regardless of validity, completely useless".