decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Stylus. | 234 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Stylus.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 03:16 PM EST
According to Bloomberg; Apple is suing Samsung for infringing
on a Stylus.

Remember S.Jobs? He said if you see a Stylus they blew it...
in other words... Jobs was trashing the Stylus and now they
see Samsung with a Stylus they want to sue Samsung for it's
Stylus. Stupid!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/apple-says-samsung-s-
galaxy-note-jelly-bean-infringe-patents.html

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Facetime Infringes
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 03:23 PM EST
I can't exactly be happy about this... but I can't be all that upset either. Apple owes $368M

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Virnetx - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 04:12 PM EST
Microsoft patents spy-TV to check you've paid for content
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 06:46 PM EST
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/microsoft_drm_spy_patent/

Surely David Smirnoff has prior art?

"In America, you watch TV. In Russia, TV watches you!"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Report: Samsung Delays New Fab Over Apple Uncertainty
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 12:21 AM EST
If I were Samsung I would be stopping the plant they were going to build in
america. If you don't like competition from me why should I give you jobs?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What is Apple spending to drop Samsung as a supplier?
Authored by: JimDiGriz on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 06:31 AM EST
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/11/08/what-is-apple-spending-to-drop-samsung-as- a-supplier/

Apple's feud with Samsung might just be costing both companies a lot more money and missed opportunities than the fines and legal costs accrued in their patent battles in various jurisdictions around the world would indicate.

We learned this week that Samsung may be delaying the construction of a planned logic fabrication facility as it digests the possibility of losing out on future chip orders from Apple. The company is reportedly "likely to put off the construction" of its Line-17 fab in Hwaseong, South Korea.

Now a rumour is circulating, that says Apple may have recently given billions of dollars to a financially struggling supplier of iPhone components, as part of an effort to avoid having to rely on Samsung for those parts.

Mobile analyst Horace Dediu of Asymco theorised on Wednesday that Apple may have shovelled over a cool $2 billion (£1.3 billion) to struggling Sharp last quarter to ensure that the supplier, which Apple has tapped to provide the touchscreen displays for its new iPhone 5 in lieu of former supplier Samsung, survived in order to actually deliver those parts.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Microsoft: ‘We believe our patent laws have served the country very well'
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:13 AM EST

Perhaps they have served Microsoft very well, but how can he speak for the whole country? He certainly doesn't speak for me, and probably not for you either.

His attitude was very frightening to me as a programmer, as it represents mainstream thinking by the powerful and elite. There is a whole false economy built on IP that is not of benefit in any way to society as a whole.

Clearly a strategy has been developed by these companies like Apple and Microsoft to patent everything they possibly can. When Apple recently announced they had increased R&D spending, already at a level of 5 billion dollars, by another billion, I immediately speculated on how much of that money goes to lawyers instead of engineers. This interview with Microsoft's chief patent council blatantly confirmed that patent lawyers are a big part of R&D spending.

As a programmer, I have this nightmare vision where software development grinds to a halt because every other thing one might attempt to do is covered by patents.

In a lot of ways, Microsoft uses that currency of innovation through IP licensing arrangements. Since 2003, we've entered into more than 1100 IP agreements with various companies, small, large, across the world, and really that's about open innovation and collaboration and sharing technologies.

Notice how he tries to equate that with "open" and "sharing" and "collaboration" when it's the very opposite! You ask how many of these Android OEMs Microsoft bullied into licensing their precious IP how joyous they are to have participated in Microsoft's collaboration and sharing of technologies. It's double-speak.

On and on he goes talking about "innovation". If patents were about protecting and promoting innovation, they wouldn't be quite so intolerable as they are today. In fact, they may even serve the purpose they were created to for - promoting progress of the arts. However, how can anybody at Apple or Microsoft say with a straight face they are patenting innovation, when what they are actually patenting is the common, mundane, every day work product of engineers. That cannot be "innovation" by definition, as innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") rather than doing the same thing better. Whatever innovation is, it has to be something that stands out.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

MS's chief patent counsel Eppenauer: ‘We believe our patent laws have served the country well
Authored by: squib on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:34 AM EST
Yesterday, day a British bases legal blog asked:
What constitutes evidence for copyright policy (law)?

An evidence based policy (EBP) would mean that policy initiatives are to be supported by
research evidence and that policies introduced on a trial basis are to be evaluated in as
rigorous a way as possible."

One might also ask what evidence is there to support current software patent laws.

As they go on to say:
For example, medicinal treatments (akin to policy) are extensively tested and their impact
on patient health reviewed. However, evidence and policy in the social sciences lack the
relative clarity associated with outcomes and treatments in other sciences.  Furthermore, as
policy is inherently political, it is subject to politics.  Therefore, the risk that evidence is only
selectively used, or used in cases where it supports a political stance, can limit the effectiveness
of policy evaluation.

Would a Whitehouse petition get this debate going in the US do you think?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Did Apple get an earful (OTR) in the UK?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
That resize code? Gone like a thief in the night.

<a
href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57546830-37/apple-quietly-pulls-apo
logy-hiding-code-from-u.k-site/">CNET article</a>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Editorial: is Engadget really that stupid? Or just corrupt? Or trolling us all?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 02:34 PM EST

For those curious, a connection to the Engadget editorial in question.

What I find most amusing is the Author apparently doesn't think his readership is intelligent enough to see the similarity between:

    Google subsidizing1 the cost of the smartphone so people are paying $300 for an unlocked phone
vs
    AT&T subsidizing the cost of the smartphone so people get it for free
Seriously dude? You don't think your readership is aware of the $0 phone they can get from AT&T?

But... we shouldn't blame AT&T and such for the expectations of subsidized hardware.... nope.... we should blame Google which came into that particular business practice (subsidizing hardware costs) long after....

All I can say with such an abvious ... err... "oversight" in facts, Mr. Fingus doesn't think too highly of the intellectual level of his readers. But... I suppose that's true of most of the main media as well.


1) Assuming that's 100% correct, it still shows significant issues in the logic presented.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Copies Switch Watch Design
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 02:35 PM EST
Apparently the Swiss Federal Railways have a copyright on the "iconic" clocks in their railway stations, and were unhappy about the design of the clock in IOS 6.
Link: Did Apple Tick Off the Swiss Railways
They've come to a licensing agreement, with terms not disclosed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )