FOSS Patents

Actually there are multiple suits worldwide against Qualcomm exactly because this business model is in question. Plaintiffs are Apple, chipmakers, regulations agency, and many concurrents if not plaintifs supported case against Qualcomm. Apple was countersued in part as a defense mechanism. In the long run today decision have probably more chances than not to be reverted. Even if he should not be considered indépendant, I always take a tour to Florian Mueller blog to have a broader context when a new like that pop out http://www.fosspatents.com Ps: and be sure to actually read the article his titles are often very misleading/ironic/cryptic.

This seems to be a list: - 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data - 8,046,721: Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (slide to unlock) - 6,847,959: universal search - 8,074,172: Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations (word recommendation/autocomplete) - 7,761,414: Background sync More details here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in-patent.ht…

So essentially apple's confidential patent agreements with Nokia, Sharp, Philips, and Ericsson are now compromised and known to Samsung through their external attorney. And allegedly, they were using them as a leverage against Nokia. Fantastic company right there. Fine the violators incredibly heavily, and stem this unethical behavior. http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/sanctions-loom-large-samsung-execs-…

Also a follow up article with comment from Nokia: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-vp8-patent.html

Most likely a reference to Florian Mueller, of http://www.fosspatents.com/ Detail: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/19/1357207/florian-mueller-outs-hi…

Florian wasn't just an anonymous blogger before he was outed. His "bully pulpit" was the blog once named "Free and Open Source Patents" (FOSS) and he leveraged some earlier open source advocacy to lend credibility to his shilling in the present case. http://www.fosspatents.com/ (Notice that the name is now seems to be changed at the site). One can however, easily find references on the web billing Mueller as an expert on "Free and Open Source Patents". Edit: Added "seems" at bottom

I don't think it's so much about Apple as about Google. The story about the Gmail Man and privacy concerns was down around number 70 (page 3) at two hours old and 59 points. That's a lot of flagging. And Android is far more vulnerable to Microsoft than iOS because the major manufacturers all have licensing agreements in place with Microsoft because of patents. Stories about BN's claims of patent abuse being thrown out by the ITC magistrate on Monday have been flagged down, including this excellent article: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/itc-throws-out-barnes-nobles-a…

If you're interested in these patent issues, you should add FOSS Patents (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/) to your RSS reader. Florian has the list of patents being asserted by HTC and some analysis of them at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/these-are-patents-google-gave-…

Also read Florian Mueller’s excellent analysis here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/35-us-states-and-microsoft-support-… > Epic's appeal is very much alive. Apple will use its market power and money to get support from all sorts of "friends of the court" as well, possibly even ridiculous astroturfing organizations. But it won't be able to counterbalance the support Epic received from 35 states, Microsoft, the EFF, and America's most cited and most authoritative antitrust law professor. It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor. Update: The U.S. federal government has now filed a brief as well: > The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in their correct interpretation. The United States files this brief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2), to address errors in the district court’s analysis of the Sherman Act, which, if uncorrected, could significantly harm antitrust enforcement. The United States takes no position on the merits of the parties’ claims. Further analysis on the government’s brief specifically: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/biden-administration-backs-epic-gam…

I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of their likelihood of winning). His take: [0] > ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid > Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed. Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity. [0] - http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-itc-staff.…

A Nokia spokesman is quoted in this article: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-vp8-patent.html as stating “Nokia believes that open and collaborative efforts for standardization are in the best interests of consumers, innovators and the industry as a whole. We are now witnessing one company attempting to force the adoption of its proprietary technology, which offers no advantages over existing, widely deployed standards such as H.264 and infringes Nokia's intellectual property. As a result, we have taken the unusual step of declaring to the Internet Engineering Task Force that we are not prepared to license any Nokia patents which may be needed to implement its RFC6386 specification for VP8, or for derivative codecs.” So their position is that since VP8 does not offer any technical or licensing advantages over H.264 (Nokia being at least one company that owns or claims to own patents on it), they’re going to use their patents to prevent Google from promoting VP8. At this point, I don’t see why any reasonable person would still want to use H.264 over VP8.

EDIT: why am I being down voted? Oracle has a pretty strong case against Google. To address the issue of fair use and if APIs can be copyrightable: 1. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs. On October 3, 1989, the Ninth Circuit held the following in Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems: "A computer program is made up of several different components, including the source and object code, the structure, sequence and/or organization of the program, the user interface, and the function, or purpose, of the program. Whether a particular component of a program is protected by a copyright depends on whether it qualifies as an 'expression' of an idea, rather than the idea itself." On to paragraph 13: "Here, the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection. [...] This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred." http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/886/1173/19079… http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/oracle-v-google-cant-make-apis.html 2. the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),…

Not so fast. APIs have been copyrightable for more than 20 years. statutory copyright law in the United States and, in particular, the case law of the Ninth Circuit (and other circuits) already allow copyright holders to claim protection of the structure, sequence and organization of their works. Yes, already. On October 3, 1989, the Ninth Circuit held the following in Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems: "A computer program is made up of several different components, including the source and object code, the structure, sequence and/or organization of the program, the user interface, and the function, or purpose, of the program. Whether a particular component of a program is protected by a copyright depends on whether it qualifies as an 'expression' of an idea, rather than the idea itself." paragraph 13:"Here, the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection. [...] This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred." Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/886/1173/19079… http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/oracle-v-google-cant-make-apis.html

>I'm impressed you only had to go back 13 months to find a bad quote? If it's all horseshit use the latest column as evidence. Very well. How about if Mueller references his own 13 month old horseshit this very day? http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/former-sun-chief-about-google-immun… as though it is still a valid theory? Does it count as an up to date impeachment of your favorite bullshit peddler? Especially because he knows nothing came of his the-sky-is-falling claims regarding the Linux, GPL and Android? And that Linus himself said the claims were crap? His current article also references another year old prediction he made which turned out to come to nothing as well http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/more-evidence-of-googles-habit-of-g… It's almost like he spews forth shitty predictions with a specific agenda in mind and doesn't care when his bullshit doesn't pan out because he makes good money by running his mouth. Then there's this snipe at Jonathan Schwartz: "In yesterday's testimony, Jonathan Schwartz tried to do as much damage to Oracle's case as he could." that or Schwartz told the truth which just happens to not be in Mueller's employer's favor.

I was not expecting it to be a GPL case. That's incredible. I wouldn't be able to sleep without more details about the licences at play here, so I found this helpful article that satisfied my curiosity: http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/12/google-switches-to-open-source-lice…

Thank you. I didn't know that. It seems two essential patents will expire in 2029 and 2030 [1]. So we are basically stuck in this mess till then. [1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/06/lessons-from-rejection-of-apples-ce…

To be sure, "support" here refers to amici curiae. Elsewhere in the article they write > Those filings [by amici curiae] are not just a "nice to have." This kind of support is mission-critical, as I explained a few days ago. And here is the blog post going deeper about what they are claiming. http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/can-superstar-lawyer-tom-goldstein-…

Earlier this year he accused my cofounder and I of conspiring with Apple to make fun of Epic on Twitter. This was entirely based on my cofounder tweeting a photo of Apple Park. http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/05/did-epic-games-ceo-tim-sweeney-get.… "The photo, taken from the lawn inside Apple Park, was posted at 4:55 PM Pacific Time, and the color of the sky as well as the length of the shadows cast by the trees suggest that the picture had been taken at just about that time of day." My cofounder tweeted the photo because Twitter had just launched new photo sizes, and the photo looked good with the changes. Just for the record, it was taken at 11:25 AM.

Quite a few of these hot takes have been deeply embarrassing for their respective media outlets. For those who prefer text over a 2.5 hour video: >No, the Epic v. Apple injunction absolutely positively DOESN'T allow developers to incorporate 'buttons' for alternative IN-APP payment mechanisms http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/09/no-epic-v-apple-injunction-absolute…

The expert to turn to in cases like this is Florian Mueller. While everybody else insisted the Alsup ruling was a slam dunk for Google and would settle API copyrightability once and for all, Mueller insisted that Oracle would win on appeal -- and they did. Mueller is now telling us that the Court will find for Oracle in a near-unanimous, if not actually unanimous, decision: http://www.fosspatents.com/2020/10/supreme-court-inclined-to-affirm.ht… He points out that the justices have been asking some really pointed questions of Google since you made this post, questions which suggest that they don't buy Google's crap for a second and they think Google is trying to pull a fast one. The law is pretty unambiguous that Google is liable for copyright infringement. Just because techies thought the law didn't work the way it does for decades doesn't actually change anything.

It’s an illegal derivative. Sun never granted a license. And of course the interface declaring code will be the same, otherwise the types would be incompatible and the documentation would be confusing: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-asks-court-to-clear-up-poten…

IANAL and I haven’t read Epic’s motion (#), but reading that, I can’t see any other outcome of this first round than “There’s no urgency to make any statement about the actual case, so Epic’s motion asking for one is dismissed” (in a text that’s quite a bit longer because it has to address the points made by either side that are relevant to the decision on urgency) #) that’s a weak point, but http://www.fosspatents.com/2020/08/epic-games-asks-district-court-to-b… agrees with what I say above.

FOSS Patents [1] has blogged about it, although I believe the site tends to be a little Pro Apple in its narrative ( And that is speaking as someone who like Apple ), it does provide a decent summary. [1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/05/breaking-news-federal-trade-commiss…

Similar news from a non-paywall site [1] [1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/05/breaking-news-federal-trade-commiss…

Here's the original source for oracle: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf The original source for Microsoft is Mueller: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.htm… I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.

Even so, I still saw my Google manager's emails in the Oracle trial: http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful-infringem…

No, no, no. Intel doesn't have a license with Qualcomm. In recent decisions made by regulators in the EU, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, Qualcomm was accused and fined precisely for their unwillingness to license their IPs to competing baseband makers (ie, Intel). The USFTC is looking to punish Qualcomm for the same offenses and enable Qualcomm's competitors to take license from Qualcomm (see http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/federal-trade-commission-may-open-u… Wrt Intel modems, the exhaustion doctrine likewise doesn't apply.

Guessing (maybe generously?) at OP's meaning, claims were made in the past about VP8 being royalty free etc, and that turned out to be wrong. It's not clear how much we can trust them this time around. http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/-76781.aspx http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-patent-risk… http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-googl… http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/next-patent-infringement-trial-over…

Some news during that time said about this, this may be the original source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/apple-htc-license-agreement-would.h… > In the event of a Change of Control of a party, this Agreement shall automatically terminate unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties, effective immediately prior to such Change of Control.

That reminds me of a line from Apple's response to an ITC complaint from HTC: > Apple denies that its correct name is Apple, Inc. The correct name of Respondent is Apple Inc. http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/11/apple-to-htc-dont-you-call-me-apple…