According to the contract manufacturers are supposed to report the number of Google Android handsets they produce each month. At least that's what the old contracts stipulated and I can't imagine why they would have changed it. That puts Google in the unique position of having reliable shipping numbers for all licensees, tho it's actual end-user numbers they report to the media every so often.
Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.
This incentive is being reduced substantially by the real legal risk that Apple has attached to handsets implementing the Google Android software. If Samsung loses the second infringement trial, that may be the tipping point where Samsung decides that forking Android is better than selling Google Android phones.
If Apple is successful in its patent infringement lawsuits, it may be able to get the courts or the ITC to ban the import/sale of Samsung products running on Google Android software. In that case, Samsung will have no choice but to sell Samsung hardware running on Tizen or an Android fork. You see, Apple is about to force Samsung to go somewhere else and Google knows that, too.
As for people migrating to other manufacturers, don't think for a second that these manufacturers will not face patent infringement lawsuits from Apple and they are going to consider this legal risk as they decide whether to accept Google's terms to use the Google Android software or fork Android.
These lawsuits don't seem to be going anywhere. It looks like Samsung will have to pay Apple a pittance and will be allowed to continue operating pretty much without many changes. I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed. Do you have any reliable links to support that position because all the news on the lawsuits seems to suggest nothing much will come from any of them.
So, you have only found just one claim of one patent and the trial has not even started?
You do not understand the significance of the pre-trial summary judgement of patent infringement in the SECOND trial of Apple v. Samsung. Following a patent infringement verdict against Samsung in the first trial (covering multiple other patents), the judge ruled before the start of the second trial that the autocomplete patent infringement was so clear and so obvious that it was deemed infringed and there was no need to subject the patent infringement claim to a trial. This suggests that the remaining Apple patents that will go to trial have a great chance of being found to be infringed.
These lawsuits don't seem to be going anywhere. It looks like Samsung will have to pay Apple a pittance and will be allowed to continue operating pretty much without many changes. I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed. Do you have any reliable links to support that position because all the news on the lawsuits seems to suggest nothing much will come from any of them.
I agree with the way Apple's lawyers read that one: a patent injunction will apply to a future product (or a modified version of a specifically-named product) if the infringement pattern is essentially the same -- but other differences between a newer product and one previously found to infringe (such as a new name, a different visual appearance, updates to the operating software that relate to other features than the patented one) don't matter. That's why Apple is seeking an injunction against "any other product not more than colorably different from an Infringing Product as to a feature found to infringe" (emphasis mine).
A patent infringement finding/ruling/verdict from a trial two years ago on products that are obsolete now are still applicable to products TODAY if they are still using the infringing feature. That's the key that most journalists and reporters don't understand.
At least, you should read your own links before saying that others don't understand.
Trial has not started, patent will be subject to trial, Samsung can try to use invalidity defense in the trial.
The patent's validity will be subject to trial but the infringement claim will NOT be subject to trial. The hurdle for convincing a jury to find a patent to be invalid is far, far greater than the hurdle for convincing a jury that the patent is not infringed. If the judge was already convinced of infringement even before seeing all the evidence in the trial, I doubt the jury is going to have any trouble coming to similar conclusions about the other patent claims.
A patent infringement finding/ruling/verdict from a trial two years ago on products that are obsolete now are still applicable to products TODAY if they are still using the infringing feature. That's the key that most journalists and reporters don't understand.
As a lawyer I am pretty sure I understand how the court system works. I am very familiar with that website and Florian Mueller. I am simply advising you not to get your hopes up because I do not foresee any substantial changes from any of these lawsuits.
So, you have only found just one claim of one patent and the trial has not even started?
You do not understand the significance of the pre-trial summary judgement of patent infringement in the SECOND trial of Apple v. Samsung. Following a patent infringement verdict against Samsung in the first trial (covering multiple other patents), the judge ruled before the start of the second trial that the autocomplete patent infringement was so clear and so obvious that it was deemed infringed and there was no need to subject the patent infringement claim to a trial. This suggests that the remaining Apple patents that will go to trial have a great chance of being found to be infringed.
Infringement of one patent has no relevance to other cases of infringement.
Why N/A? Google licenses their services in a contract that's intended to benefit both parties. If Acer is violating the terms of the contract Google suspends the services. Seems simple enough and doesn't require a courtroom.
sure, but the OHS agreement does not incorporate Google services per se.
No they don't have 'absolute' control. Amazon was able to do to fork it, and now there are manufacturers that will be installing Cyanogenmod (a custom ROM) on their devices as the stock OS. LG could very easily leave the OHA and fork Android to their liking.
I said they "will" have complete control. And Amazon forked a version of Android BEFORE Google's push to take the API's out of Android itself and put them into Google Play Services.
When Google made updates to the various versions of Android (GB to ICS to JB....) they also made the source code available to the AOSP. This meant that AOSP was being updated to the newest versions with all the latest features.
Now Google is placing new features and API's into Google Play Services itself. So AOSP is now essentially "frozen" as it gets no new "goodies" from Google. While a manufacturer could still fork Android, what's the point when the version you get access to is old? And it's getting older, and less useful with every new update Google does.
AOSP is becoming less relevant each day until it will eventually be useless. Android will have moved on to Google Play Services and any Android device from a "forked" version is going to look mighty stale compared to the latest devices with Google Play Services.
First of all let me say that I agree with your assessment that Android is not quite as "open" as they once pretended and I understand how they are deliberately using Google play services to lock down Android tighter. Acer however should have been aware of the contract they signed so I am not sure you can blame Google for Acer being ignorant of their contract.
Acer wouldn't spend millions of dollars tooling up and producing a phone if they didn't think they could sell it. I have a feeling that at the time this happened the language in their agreement was pretty vague about this type of situation and Acer felt they were abiding by the rules.
Google contacted them and "reinforced" what the rules really mean, and Acer had to comply. I don't think you can blame Acer - unless you actually believe that a company that large would be so stupid to actually understand what being a member of the OHA really meant, and decided to waste millions when they knew full well they were going to have to pull out the day before the release.
According to the second link, "To make autocomplete even more accurate and useful, Google updates automatically, biases predictions towards the user’s location based on the requester’s IP address. That means, results that are closer to the user will appear sooner in the API’s responses, saving users even more keystrokes and time. "
This seems like a feature unique to google's implementation which doesn't seem to be asserted anywhere in the patent claims. In fact, the patent leaves out some nontrivial algorithmic details required to actually make a working implementation. Is this the norm for software patents? Or is the patent in question considered a design patent instead of a utility patent?
Acer wouldn't spend millions of dollars tooling up and producing a phone if they didn't think they could sell it. I have a feeling that at the time this happened the language in their agreement was pretty vague about this type of situation and Acer felt they were abiding by the rules.
Google contacted them and "reinforced" what the rules really mean, and Acer had to comply. I don't think you can blame Acer - unless you actually believe that a company that large would be so stupid to actually understand what being a member of the OHA really meant, and decided to waste millions when they knew full well they were going to have to pull out the day before the release.
Android Police found that, "Aliyun's app store appeared to be distributing Android apps scraped from the Play Store and other websites, not only downloadable to Aliyun devices as .apk files, but also provided by third parties not involved with the apps' or games' development. What's more, we've received independent confirmation from the original developers of some of these apps that they did not in fact give consent for their products to be distributed in Aliyun's app store."
Not the least of the evidence is that the Aliyun includes Google's own Android applications such as Google Translate, Google Sky Map, Google Drive, and Google Play Books. The odds of Google giving Aliyun permission to use its own applications are somewhere between zero and none.
What we seem to have in Aliyun is an illegal Android and Linux fork, which supports a pirated software ecosystem. I only wonder that Google didn't come down even harder on Acer and I really wonder how much due diligence, if any, Acer did before signing a deal with Alibaba. "
This totally makes sense. Even it's an open source OS, you can't just do whatever you want with it without giving credits to the owner (Google). Google makes smart move on this to make android device manufacturers to get back in line with the stock android. So, HTC Sense 5.x, Samsung TouchWiz should show something about android in their devices. Especially Samsung, they tried to hide android from their TouchWiz so they can make transition from android to Tizen without user notice. Google would not allow this to happen, so they act on it quickly. Nice job, Google.
This totally makes sense. Even it's an open source OS, you can't just do whatever you want with it without giving credits to the owner (Google). Google makes smart move on this to make android device manufacturers to get back in line with the stock android. So, HTC Sense 5.x, Samsung TouchWiz should show something about android in their devices. Especially Samsung, they tried to hide android from their TouchWiz so they can make transition from android to Tizen without user notice. Google would not allow this to happen, so they act on it quickly. Nice job, Google.
They're also trying to minimize fragmentation by doing this.
I said they "will" have complete control. And Amazon forked a version of Android BEFORE Google's push to take the API's out of Android itself and put them into Google Play Services.
This is FUD, but it's not your fault. Sites report this as if it was true, but what Google is doing is adding APIs for their services to GMS. For example the location database that looks up against their wifi database. Their callerID database etc. AOSP remains fully functional.
Quote:
Now Google is placing new features and API's into Google Play Services itself. So AOSP is now essentially "frozen" as it gets no new "goodies" from Google. While a manufacturer could still fork Android, what's the point when the version you get access to is old? And it's getting older, and less useful with every new update Google does.
AOSP is becoming less relevant each day until it will eventually be useless. Android will have moved on to Google Play Services and any Android device from a "forked" version is going to look mighty stale compared to the latest devices with Google Play Services.
All the AOSP apps have new maintainers, so this won't happen either. Take Cyanogenmod for an example of a group pushing hard to improve AOSP.
Are you a paid Google shill? You want him to cut and paste a copyrighted article from the WSJ with no regard for IP? Really?
I ask only because this sounds like the kind of thing that Google might do.
FWIW I've never seen any reliable source ever offer evidence that Google pays folks for favorable posts. Now had you been speaking of Samsung or Microsoft I have seen at least circumstantial evidence that they have. There was even a very recent one involving the latest Xbox and Youtube reviews.
FWIW I've never seen any reliable source ever offer evidence that Google pays folks for favorable posts. Now had you been speaking of Samsung or Microsoft I have seen at least circumstantial evidence that they have. There was even a very recent one involving the latest Xbox and Youtube reviews.
Comments
Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.
This incentive is being reduced substantially by the real legal risk that Apple has attached to handsets implementing the Google Android software. If Samsung loses the second infringement trial, that may be the tipping point where Samsung decides that forking Android is better than selling Google Android phones.
If Apple is successful in its patent infringement lawsuits, it may be able to get the courts or the ITC to ban the import/sale of Samsung products running on Google Android software. In that case, Samsung will have no choice but to sell Samsung hardware running on Tizen or an Android fork. You see, Apple is about to force Samsung to go somewhere else and Google knows that, too.
As for people migrating to other manufacturers, don't think for a second that these manufacturers will not face patent infringement lawsuits from Apple and they are going to consider this legal risk as they decide whether to accept Google's terms to use the Google Android software or fork Android.
These lawsuits don't seem to be going anywhere. It looks like Samsung will have to pay Apple a pittance and will be allowed to continue operating pretty much without many changes. I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed. Do you have any reliable links to support that position because all the news on the lawsuits seems to suggest nothing much will come from any of them.
So, you have only found just one claim of one patent and the trial has not even started?
You do not understand the significance of the pre-trial summary judgement of patent infringement in the SECOND trial of Apple v. Samsung. Following a patent infringement verdict against Samsung in the first trial (covering multiple other patents), the judge ruled before the start of the second trial that the autocomplete patent infringement was so clear and so obvious that it was deemed infringed and there was no need to subject the patent infringement claim to a trial. This suggests that the remaining Apple patents that will go to trial have a great chance of being found to be infringed.
At least, you should read your own links before saying that others don't understand.
Trial has not started, patent will be subject to trial, Samsung can try to use invalidity defense in the trial.
These lawsuits don't seem to be going anywhere. It looks like Samsung will have to pay Apple a pittance and will be allowed to continue operating pretty much without many changes. I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed. Do you have any reliable links to support that position because all the news on the lawsuits seems to suggest nothing much will come from any of them.
Try http://www.fosspatents.com
The news you read about the lawsuits are written by people who do not understand how the court system works.
This is most informative:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/samsung-concerned-about-resellers-fear.html
Florian Muller quote:
I agree with the way Apple's lawyers read that one: a patent injunction will apply to a future product (or a modified version of a specifically-named product) if the infringement pattern is essentially the same -- but other differences between a newer product and one previously found to infringe (such as a new name, a different visual appearance, updates to the operating software that relate to other features than the patented one) don't matter. That's why Apple is seeking an injunction against "any other product not more than colorably different from an Infringing Product as to a feature found to infringe" (emphasis mine).
A patent infringement finding/ruling/verdict from a trial two years ago on products that are obsolete now are still applicable to products TODAY if they are still using the infringing feature. That's the key that most journalists and reporters don't understand.
At least, you should read your own links before saying that others don't understand.
Trial has not started, patent will be subject to trial, Samsung can try to use invalidity defense in the trial.
The patent's validity will be subject to trial but the infringement claim will NOT be subject to trial. The hurdle for convincing a jury to find a patent to be invalid is far, far greater than the hurdle for convincing a jury that the patent is not infringed. If the judge was already convinced of infringement even before seeing all the evidence in the trial, I doubt the jury is going to have any trouble coming to similar conclusions about the other patent claims.
Try http://www.fosspatents.com
The news you read about the lawsuits are written by people who do not understand how the court system works.
This is most informative:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/samsung-concerned-about-resellers-fear.html
Florian Muller quote:
A patent infringement finding/ruling/verdict from a trial two years ago on products that are obsolete now are still applicable to products TODAY if they are still using the infringing feature. That's the key that most journalists and reporters don't understand.
As a lawyer I am pretty sure I understand how the court system works. I am very familiar with that website and Florian Mueller. I am simply advising you not to get your hopes up because I do not foresee any substantial changes from any of these lawsuits.
So, you have only found just one claim of one patent and the trial has not even started?
You do not understand the significance of the pre-trial summary judgement of patent infringement in the SECOND trial of Apple v. Samsung. Following a patent infringement verdict against Samsung in the first trial (covering multiple other patents), the judge ruled before the start of the second trial that the autocomplete patent infringement was so clear and so obvious that it was deemed infringed and there was no need to subject the patent infringement claim to a trial. This suggests that the remaining Apple patents that will go to trial have a great chance of being found to be infringed.
Infringement of one patent has no relevance to other cases of infringement.
Why N/A? Google licenses their services in a contract that's intended to benefit both parties. If Acer is violating the terms of the contract Google suspends the services. Seems simple enough and doesn't require a courtroom.
sure, but the OHS agreement does not incorporate Google services per se.
No they don't have 'absolute' control. Amazon was able to do to fork it, and now there are manufacturers that will be installing Cyanogenmod (a custom ROM) on their devices as the stock OS. LG could very easily leave the OHA and fork Android to their liking.
I said they "will" have complete control. And Amazon forked a version of Android BEFORE Google's push to take the API's out of Android itself and put them into Google Play Services.
When Google made updates to the various versions of Android (GB to ICS to JB....) they also made the source code available to the AOSP. This meant that AOSP was being updated to the newest versions with all the latest features.
Now Google is placing new features and API's into Google Play Services itself. So AOSP is now essentially "frozen" as it gets no new "goodies" from Google. While a manufacturer could still fork Android, what's the point when the version you get access to is old? And it's getting older, and less useful with every new update Google does.
AOSP is becoming less relevant each day until it will eventually be useless. Android will have moved on to Google Play Services and any Android device from a "forked" version is going to look mighty stale compared to the latest devices with Google Play Services.
First of all let me say that I agree with your assessment that Android is not quite as "open" as they once pretended and I understand how they are deliberately using Google play services to lock down Android tighter. Acer however should have been aware of the contract they signed so I am not sure you can blame Google for Acer being ignorant of their contract.
Acer wouldn't spend millions of dollars tooling up and producing a phone if they didn't think they could sell it. I have a feeling that at the time this happened the language in their agreement was pretty vague about this type of situation and Acer felt they were abiding by the rules.
Google contacted them and "reinforced" what the rules really mean, and Acer had to comply. I don't think you can blame Acer - unless you actually believe that a company that large would be so stupid to actually understand what being a member of the OHA really meant, and decided to waste millions when they knew full well they were going to have to pull out the day before the release.
Here is one example:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html
The Auto-correct feature is found in the GMS but not in the AOSP. (http://www.fonearena.com/blog/88107/google-places-api-brings-out-autocomplete-for-better-predictions.html)
According to the second link, "To make autocomplete even more accurate and useful, Google updates automatically, biases predictions towards the user’s location based on the requester’s IP address. That means, results that are closer to the user will appear sooner in the API’s responses, saving users even more keystrokes and time. "
This seems like a feature unique to google's implementation which doesn't seem to be asserted anywhere in the patent claims. In fact, the patent leaves out some nontrivial algorithmic details required to actually make a working implementation. Is this the norm for software patents? Or is the patent in question considered a design patent instead of a utility patent?
Acer wouldn't spend millions of dollars tooling up and producing a phone if they didn't think they could sell it. I have a feeling that at the time this happened the language in their agreement was pretty vague about this type of situation and Acer felt they were abiding by the rules.
Google contacted them and "reinforced" what the rules really mean, and Acer had to comply. I don't think you can blame Acer - unless you actually believe that a company that large would be so stupid to actually understand what being a member of the OHA really meant, and decided to waste millions when they knew full well they were going to have to pull out the day before the release.
I suggest reading this link.
http://www.zdnet.com/is-aliyun-os-really-linux-android-a-rip-off-of-both-7000004318/
"
Android Police found that, "Aliyun's app store appeared to be distributing Android apps scraped from the Play Store and other websites, not only downloadable to Aliyun devices as .apk files, but also provided by third parties not involved with the apps' or games' development. What's more, we've received independent confirmation from the original developers of some of these apps that they did not in fact give consent for their products to be distributed in Aliyun's app store."
Not the least of the evidence is that the Aliyun includes Google's own Android applications such as Google Translate, Google Sky Map, Google Drive, and Google Play Books. The odds of Google giving Aliyun permission to use its own applications are somewhere between zero and none.
What we seem to have in Aliyun is an illegal Android and Linux fork, which supports a pirated software ecosystem. I only wonder that Google didn't come down even harder on Acer and I really wonder how much due diligence, if any, Acer did before signing a deal with Alibaba. "
It looks like it does to me if you're referring to the contract reported here in the AI article.
This totally makes sense. Even it's an open source OS, you can't just do whatever you want with it without giving credits to the owner (Google). Google makes smart move on this to make android device manufacturers to get back in line with the stock android. So, HTC Sense 5.x, Samsung TouchWiz should show something about android in their devices. Especially Samsung, they tried to hide android from their TouchWiz so they can make transition from android to Tizen without user notice. Google would not allow this to happen, so they act on it quickly. Nice job, Google.
They're also trying to minimize fragmentation by doing this.
You want him to cut and paste a copyrighted article from the WSJ with no regard for IP? Really?
This sounds like the kind of thing that Google might do.
I said they "will" have complete control. And Amazon forked a version of Android BEFORE Google's push to take the API's out of Android itself and put them into Google Play Services.
This is FUD, but it's not your fault. Sites report this as if it was true, but what Google is doing is adding APIs for their services to GMS. For example the location database that looks up against their wifi database. Their callerID database etc. AOSP remains fully functional.
None of this is accurate. Last change to Android? 15 hours ago: https://github.com/android/platform_system_core
All the AOSP apps have new maintainers, so this won't happen either. Take Cyanogenmod for an example of a group pushing hard to improve AOSP.
FWIW I've never seen any reliable source ever offer evidence that Google pays folks for favorable posts. Now had you been speaking of Samsung or Microsoft I have seen at least circumstantial evidence that they have. There was even a very recent one involving the latest Xbox and Youtube reviews.
FWIW I've never seen any reliable source ever offer evidence that Google pays folks for favorable posts. Now had you been speaking of Samsung or Microsoft I have seen at least circumstantial evidence that they have. There was even a very recent one involving the latest Xbox and Youtube reviews.
Don't worry, he just tried to insult.