Article:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/googles-promise-not-to-assert-10.html
This article overviews Google being quite stingy in their pledge in the open source patent pool. Basically, Google has pledged to not sue open source a total of 10 patents. You might think, wow that's really kind of Google to 'donate' 10 patents for open source code writers to use in their development. But let's think about other companies who have pledged in this pool: IBM pledged 500 and Sun approximately 1,600.
10 really isn't that big of a number. It's such a small fraction of Google's 17,000+ patents they actually own. 17,000 is just the number Google has published, it still has a number of patents that are currently in transaction or not formally reassigned until assertion in court. In my previous entry, I talk about Microsoft's Patent Tracker, a database which allows ANYONE to search through ALL of Microsoft's patents. With Google's pledge of 10 patents to open source pool, I have a feeling that Google will not be making any strides like Microsoft and allow for people to 'google' their patents.
It is true that this 10 patents are just Google's initial contribution to the pool. I wonder if they will pledge any more patents in the future, but I think there are dim chances.
Thoughts?
Friday, March 29, 2013
Weak 9, Post 17: Microsoft Patent Transparency
Microsoft just announced that on April 1st, they will be launching a Patent Tracker. This patent 'tracker' will allow anyone to search through Microsoft's patents, basically like a google search through all of microsoft's patents. This is in hopes to allow other companies to not infringe upon their patents, by providing a clear, transparent search composed of all their patents.
I think this is actually quite great. I've read in other articles that the vast number of patents one company can hold, and actually what each patent is, is so large that it could be hard to know if you're using the same technology as another company in patents. The Patent Tracker will hopefully allow companies clarity and ease in developing their own patents, ensuring they are not obstructing into Microsoft's area and possibly get sued.
I wonder if other companies will follow Microsoft and make their patents transparant
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/03/28/enhancing-transparency-putting-microsoft-s-patents-on-the-web.aspx
Friday, March 22, 2013
Week 8, Post 16: German Courts referring to CJEU
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/german-court-refers-huawei-zte-standard.html
This article talks about German Dusseldorf Regional Court referring to the highest court in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU). Dusseldorf Regional Court hears more patent infringement cases then any court in Europe, so it is quite surprising to see that they are unable to make a decision. The reference was ordered on the Huawei vs. ZTE case, two giant Chinese telecommunications hardware makers. The Court was unsure of how to proceed and present CJEU with five fundamental questions over the different remedies available to holders of FRAND (explained in previous post)-pledged SEP concerning the availabilities of remedies to holders of FRAND-pledged SEPs (standard essential patents).
The call upon CJEU will actually affect how all cases will be held and be used as a principle for further cases throughout Europe, meaning it will affect any case after CJEU responds to Dusseldorf Court. The case between Huawei and ZTE concerns over 4G/LTE cellular telecommunication patents, where Huawei claims ZTE infringes on their patents. Prior, two different cases between the two companies ended in two different results: one found ZTE infringing and other did not. It ended with Huawei licensing their patent to ZTE. However, now with this new case, their is a question in how Dusseldorf should continue.
I think it will be interesting to see what happens in this case as this case (which may seem small, probably because I have never heard of either companies). Further reading the article points out how this case may in fact affect patent infringement cases between Samsung and Google also occurring in Dusseldorf! This could be a huge impact on such large companies in the Europe!!
Thoughts?
This article talks about German Dusseldorf Regional Court referring to the highest court in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU). Dusseldorf Regional Court hears more patent infringement cases then any court in Europe, so it is quite surprising to see that they are unable to make a decision. The reference was ordered on the Huawei vs. ZTE case, two giant Chinese telecommunications hardware makers. The Court was unsure of how to proceed and present CJEU with five fundamental questions over the different remedies available to holders of FRAND (explained in previous post)-pledged SEP concerning the availabilities of remedies to holders of FRAND-pledged SEPs (standard essential patents).
The call upon CJEU will actually affect how all cases will be held and be used as a principle for further cases throughout Europe, meaning it will affect any case after CJEU responds to Dusseldorf Court. The case between Huawei and ZTE concerns over 4G/LTE cellular telecommunication patents, where Huawei claims ZTE infringes on their patents. Prior, two different cases between the two companies ended in two different results: one found ZTE infringing and other did not. It ended with Huawei licensing their patent to ZTE. However, now with this new case, their is a question in how Dusseldorf should continue.
I think it will be interesting to see what happens in this case as this case (which may seem small, probably because I have never heard of either companies). Further reading the article points out how this case may in fact affect patent infringement cases between Samsung and Google also occurring in Dusseldorf! This could be a huge impact on such large companies in the Europe!!
Thoughts?
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Week 8, Post 15: Ericsson, the new troll
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/samsung-says-ericsson-behaves-like.html
I'm sure most of you have hear of Ericsson, part of what use to be Sony-Ericsson cellphones until Ericsson recently sold its part to Sony. Currently, Ericsson is suing Samsung for patent infringements in which Samsung has retaliated with their own complaints over patents. Samsung has asserted 8 of their own patents over Ericsson in their retaliation and a breach of FRAND agreement. If you do not know what FRAND stands for, it is "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and is typically used to describe patent licensing terms.
What I find very interesting in this article is the fact that Samsung compares Ericsson with the infamous patent trolls. Ericsson is currently out of the cellphone market and yet still hold many patents in the field. Instead of quietly exiting the arena, Ericsson is using their patents in order, as what it seems, to provide some inflow of cash. Ericsson is no longer competing with Samsung and the other companies for the market. I agree with Samsung that Ericsson is acting like a troll. Instead of allowing companies like Samsung to grow and develop their products, Ericsson is utilizing their patents to halt Samsung just so they can make some cash!
Thoughts?
I'm sure most of you have hear of Ericsson, part of what use to be Sony-Ericsson cellphones until Ericsson recently sold its part to Sony. Currently, Ericsson is suing Samsung for patent infringements in which Samsung has retaliated with their own complaints over patents. Samsung has asserted 8 of their own patents over Ericsson in their retaliation and a breach of FRAND agreement. If you do not know what FRAND stands for, it is "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and is typically used to describe patent licensing terms.
What I find very interesting in this article is the fact that Samsung compares Ericsson with the infamous patent trolls. Ericsson is currently out of the cellphone market and yet still hold many patents in the field. Instead of quietly exiting the arena, Ericsson is using their patents in order, as what it seems, to provide some inflow of cash. Ericsson is no longer competing with Samsung and the other companies for the market. I agree with Samsung that Ericsson is acting like a troll. Instead of allowing companies like Samsung to grow and develop their products, Ericsson is utilizing their patents to halt Samsung just so they can make some cash!
Thoughts?
Friday, March 15, 2013
Week 7 , Post 14: Nokia vs. HTC
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-drops-several-claims-of-one.html
After reading this article, it seems that the patent war between Nokia and HTC isn't working out for Nokia. Nokia has dropped 2 out of 9 patent in-suits and has dropped several claims. It does not seem to be working out for Nokia and they seem to be failing in winning these litigations against HTC.
I agree with the author that there will definitely be some sort of out of court settlement between the two companies over the different arguments. Let's see what happens!
After reading this article, it seems that the patent war between Nokia and HTC isn't working out for Nokia. Nokia has dropped 2 out of 9 patent in-suits and has dropped several claims. It does not seem to be working out for Nokia and they seem to be failing in winning these litigations against HTC.
I agree with the author that there will definitely be some sort of out of court settlement between the two companies over the different arguments. Let's see what happens!
Week 7, Post 13: Hmmm
Todays reading:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-quotes-steve-jobs-biography-in.html
This article discusses the patent wars between Google and Apple about banning the import of iPhone into the US. What I find so interesting in this article is that Google quotes Apple's own Steve Job's biography into their brief. A quote talks about Jobs being amazed by the use of a proximity sensor that figured out when you had the phone near your ear, in order to not allow your lobes press buttons on accident.
I think Google is trying to bring importance and legitimacy of their claims against Apple. Utilizing Jobs' words for their own benefit basically makes it seem like Jobs advocating for their technology and therefore, the court should rule with Google.
Let's see if this becomes fruitful
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-quotes-steve-jobs-biography-in.html
This article discusses the patent wars between Google and Apple about banning the import of iPhone into the US. What I find so interesting in this article is that Google quotes Apple's own Steve Job's biography into their brief. A quote talks about Jobs being amazed by the use of a proximity sensor that figured out when you had the phone near your ear, in order to not allow your lobes press buttons on accident.
I think Google is trying to bring importance and legitimacy of their claims against Apple. Utilizing Jobs' words for their own benefit basically makes it seem like Jobs advocating for their technology and therefore, the court should rule with Google.
Let's see if this becomes fruitful
Friday, March 8, 2013
Week 6, Post 12: Samsung Loses again
Todays reading:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/uk-judge-delines-samsungs-job-offer.html
Samsung fails to win again! I guess that't not a super happy thing. Across the globe, Samsung has failed to prevail 25 standard-essential patents (SEP) assertions against Apple, it's biggest competitor. Judges across the globe are siding with Apple's counterclaims, forcing Samsung to concede statements, which then are used against them in other cases. Samsung has only been able to win 2 cases in Korea and 1 on the Netherlands. It seems that Samsung has a 1 in 8 winning chance against Apple.
I personally feel that Samsung is attempting to use the cases to fend off and force Apple to slow down, but instead it's actually hurting them instead! I think what might be best for Samsung is to focus on their own company and products and counterclaims against Apple. Every time they bring Apple court, they have a higher chance losing the case, money, and the ability to use some of their own technology!!
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/uk-judge-delines-samsungs-job-offer.html
Samsung fails to win again! I guess that't not a super happy thing. Across the globe, Samsung has failed to prevail 25 standard-essential patents (SEP) assertions against Apple, it's biggest competitor. Judges across the globe are siding with Apple's counterclaims, forcing Samsung to concede statements, which then are used against them in other cases. Samsung has only been able to win 2 cases in Korea and 1 on the Netherlands. It seems that Samsung has a 1 in 8 winning chance against Apple.
I personally feel that Samsung is attempting to use the cases to fend off and force Apple to slow down, but instead it's actually hurting them instead! I think what might be best for Samsung is to focus on their own company and products and counterclaims against Apple. Every time they bring Apple court, they have a higher chance losing the case, money, and the ability to use some of their own technology!!
Week 6, Post 11: Google's Royalty Free License
This weeks reading:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-google.html
This blog entry talks about many things, but what struck out to me was the royalty-free licensing agreement between Google and Nokia. Currently, Nokia is suing HTC over patent infringment over the use of an 'apparatus and method for compressing a motion vector field.' Google has chosen on to take a royalty free license from Nokia concerning this patent (EP1206881). However, in email transcriptions, the context of the agreement seems faulty and does not follow policy. The definition of the agreement which is linked in the transcription isn't actually to the W3C current and royalty-free patent policy, but instead to a 3 year old policy.
This is interesting to me as the policy that Google utilizes for the terms of their agreement is actually an outdated policy. Will this actually hold in a court of law? I feel that it would not since they are making the agreement this year, but utilizing old and outdated definitions. I think Google will need to update the terms of the agreement utilizing the current terms in order to fully protect themselves in case of a lawsuit.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-google.html
This blog entry talks about many things, but what struck out to me was the royalty-free licensing agreement between Google and Nokia. Currently, Nokia is suing HTC over patent infringment over the use of an 'apparatus and method for compressing a motion vector field.' Google has chosen on to take a royalty free license from Nokia concerning this patent (EP1206881). However, in email transcriptions, the context of the agreement seems faulty and does not follow policy. The definition of the agreement which is linked in the transcription isn't actually to the W3C current and royalty-free patent policy, but instead to a 3 year old policy.
This is interesting to me as the policy that Google utilizes for the terms of their agreement is actually an outdated policy. Will this actually hold in a court of law? I feel that it would not since they are making the agreement this year, but utilizing old and outdated definitions. I think Google will need to update the terms of the agreement utilizing the current terms in order to fully protect themselves in case of a lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)