|
| Authored by: Christian on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
| How does Google get around "making" ?
I can see that they aren't selling or
using, but writing code embodying patented technology seems like it must qualify
as "making." [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Making - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:20 PM EDT
- Making - Authored by: Christian on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- Making - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Making - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Making - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 03:34 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
But this doesn't really help anyone. Sure, Google Androiders and FOSS developers
would be immune. So what? the patent trolls would just sue all their users: open
hunting season on all sellers of Android phones--and those folk, unlike Google,
would not have the intellectual and financial resources to resist the
shakedown.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
Judges avoid making law they don't have to. "No anticipated revenue"
isn't
what the court has before it.
There's simply no reason for the judge to rule one way or another on this.
So he won't. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
Every free software license is an exchange. The FOSS developer's
"compensation" is the behavior of the recipient. A promise of certain
behavior is sufficient to support a contract in the absence of money; while a
license is not a contract, there are similar principles at work. The only
software that does not involve compensation is that which is directly dedicated
to the public domain.
Google distributes Android source code under the Apache License 2.0. Phone
manufacturers who use this code must provide attribution of Google's work and,
if they change any Google files, they must tell end users which files were
modified. These two behaviors ensure that Google gets credit for what it created
but does not get blamed for bugs introduced by a manufacturer's changes. I
believe I would have no problem selling that to a judge as compensation, and
Jacobs and Boies are way better lawyers than I am!
---
IAALBIANYL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
The purpose of patents are to get the ideas out to the public, instead of being
trade secrets.
Sure there's the advancement of science and the arts, but really it's just about
getting trade secrets out in the public.
Since FOSS is already getting the information out to the public in a useful way,
without retaining trade secrets, why should laws designed to further these same
goals work against them? It's very contradictory.
This would be like driving safety laws punishing safe drivers. "You're TOO
SAFE!"
It's very ludicrous...
PTO: "You should share your ideas and we'll give you a monopoly"
FOSS: "We'll just share our ideas and screw the monopoly"
PTO: "But.. but! You MUST only achieve our goals THE WAY WE WANT you
to!"
Uhg. What of FreeBSD, or Linux? It's just software -- it's a method with no
apparatus. This just makes the software patent situation even more ridiculous.
I agree Google probably won't get this JMOL in their favor since they have
Google branded phones (which combine the apparatus and methods). However, for
things like BSD or Linux? They shouldn't be able to be sued for patent
infringement, IMHO.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
While it may be true that "distribution for free of Android is not an
infringing activity under the Patent Act," Google didn't pick Android off a
tree. Making an Android that uses the patented methods would already be
an infringing activity.
IMHO Android doesn't use the patented methods,
but I'm just a programmer who knows Java and bytecode. The jury may find
otherwise. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
