Google asks for re-examination of 2 Lodsys patents
Google has filed a request with the United States Patent on Trademark Office (USPTO), asking that 2 of the patents Lodsys is using the troll iOS and Android developers be re-examined.
“We’ve asked the US Patent Office to reexamine two Lodsys patents that we believe should never have been issued,” Google senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker told Wired.com in a statement. “Developers play a critical part in the Android ecosystem and Google will continue to support them.”
While re-examination could get the patents thrown out, the more common result seems to be a narrowing of focus. Likewise, while the ongoing Lodsys lawsuits could be paused pending the re-examination, there's no guarantee of that either.
It's nice to finally see Google take some action, though Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents seems non-plussed:
While I agree with Google's senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker that those patents should never have been issued, I don't consider those reexamination requests -- unless they will be accompanied by more forceful and useful measures very soon -- a serious commitment to supporting Android app developers against trolls. If this is all that Google does, it's too little, too late, and calling it "half-hearted" would be an overstatement.
Apple, by contrast, has filed a motion to intervene in the cases. Apple, Google, Microsoft and others are already licensed under an agreement with previous patent holder, Intellectual Ventures. There was a theory that the Intellectual Ventures license might prevent Apple et al from trying to invalidate the patents, so either that's not the case or Google is going for it anyway.
Meanwhile, the whole situation continues to cost developers time, money, attention, and sanity. (Which is part of why this matters.
Editor-in-Chief of iMore, Executive Producer at Mobile Nations, co-host of Iterate and ZEN and TECH, cook, grappler, photon wrangler.
| Tweet |
|
|
Leave a Reply
Note: Comments must be civil, respectful, and on-topic. If a comment does not add to the conversation, if it contains spam advertising, or inappropriate language or content, it will be removed. Insulting the topic, author, staff, site, network, or other commenters will result in the comment being marked as spam and potential prevent future comments from appearing on the site. Do not post as a business or your comment will likely be confused with spam. Comments containing links may be held for moderation. Relax, enjoy, and share in the discussion.
Why would Google's motion to re-examine and overturn these patents be half-hearted? If anything, the opposite is true -- Apple's motions to intervene takes the halfway measure of considering Lodsys' patents valid, simply offering the theory that Apple's paid licenses covers Apple customers.
Google, on the other hand, is (admittedly lately) taking the far more aggressive stance that the patents in question should be completely tossed out.
(btw, your link to FOSS patents at the end of the post is empty.)
So you're saying that a longshot is less halfhearted than a medium shot ?
What makes it a longshot? Google is pretty good at invalidating stuff in court. Just look at the Oracle case for a recent example. If Google used their down time to swot up on supporting evidence, they could end the whole thing in one fell swoop for everyone.
I don't really follow Florians "odds" argument as to why its automatically a weak action, as it ignores circumstance. It's like saying the odds of having a successful consumer tablet is low, therefore the iPad 3 will be a flop.
Not at all - I'm saying that surrendering half the battle before you even start - as Apple is doing by conceding the validity of this troll's patents, is the half-hearted measure, whereas Google, though late to the party, is poised to fight the entire fight.
If you did even a little research (or perhaps you know, but are trying to make apple look bad) you would know that apple is licensing a group of patents from lodsys which includes the patents in question. And a part of that licensing agreement, like almost all patent licensing agreements, stipulates that you cannot fight to invalidate those patents in court.
Hence Apples argument that they already own licenses to the patents which should cover their developers.
More and more I see Dev. that you are not trying to see whats happening, only "why Apple r bad un Google es teh good geuys." it's pretty sad.
Ad hominem much?
Without stooping to your level:
1) Any portion of any licensing agreement can be challenged.
2) If you are found in violation of that license, and the patents are valid, the penalty is - surprise - a revocation of that license, plus anything else specifically proscribed in the contract. Nothing more, nothing less. Any company willing to risk that contract can mount a challenge.
You may not realize that Google is also a partner in IV, has the same relevant licenses, and faces the same decisions and consequences as does Apple. Google is willing to risk its standing with IV to fight this particular troll, Apple is not.
That is not good or evil; it is corporate strategy. In different circumstances, Apple and Google could reverse positions. I could care less if it is Apple or Google leading the charge against BS patents; I simply want trollish patents eliminated. In this specific case, Google's position does more to advance that cause than does Apple's.
If it is true, as Dev has stated, that Google has licenses from IV, like Apple does, perhaps Google and Apple are going at it from two different directions on purpose. Kinda like "You re-examine the patents, and we'll enforce the license." If Google is successful, Apple benefits. If Apple is successful, Google benefits (if they have the same licenses).
@Ron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
Google and Apple are both large investors in Intellectual Ventures. (Cue perfectly legitimate complaints about Google's hypocrisy wrt patents here.)
While the license terms for the Lodsys patents are not specifically disclosed, since both Google and Apple are IV partners, and both Apple and Google seem to have the same licenses of their own products, in the absence of any other publicly disclosed contracts to the contrary it seems safe to assume that both Google's and Apple's rights to Lodsys patents are derived from their participation/investment in IV.
Apple and Google are definitely going at it from different directions. I prefer Google's path here simply because invalidation will kill the troll, whereas Apple's concessions of validity and arguing of license terms can only, at best, push the troll to a new bridge, where it will survive and attack somebody else. If the roles were reversed, rest assured I would be cheering Apple and booing Google.
poised to fight the entire 20% chance of winning - which is still less than 50% which is apples chance, (although i would have put that figure lower). You say lower down that Apple and Google could swap positions which is incorrect: Apple can use an exhaustive argument for its defence within 'the units of commodity' whereas "most Android-based devices are not sold by Google itself and Lodsys could try to have the term 'commodity' construed in a way that would work against Google."
"Developers play a critical part in the Android ecosystem and Google will continue to support them.”
So they actually like malware to be on the android platform? And ecosystem? HA thats a laugh
What malware dumbass?
Clearly you never used android before dumbass.
Your the dumbass. You'd actually have to try or download from an unreliable source to get Malware on Android. You're just a hater sir.
Why are you on an apple blog then?
Don't worry. This middle-aged "man" has nothing better to do than argue senseless points from his parent's basement. The only time he's not posting irrational comments is when his mommy is heating him up a hotpocket.
Actually I've had the G1 in 2009, Nexus One in 2010, and now the Nexus S and I've never had issues with malware. You can get malware if you install apps outside the Android Market you clueless f**c.
You mad?
On another note, you guys really should get around to editing the Nokia out of this image.
Get a new image! Seriuosly, it is old!
I just got an iPad2-32GB for $ 24.53 and my girlfriend loves her Dell laptop that we got for $ 35.46 there arriving tomorrow by UPS I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 42 inch LED TV to my boss for $ 655 which only cost me $ 61.79 to buy.Here is the website we use to get it all from, Grab Penny.com
That image from star trek is way too over used, I request that it never be used again.
As many readers of this blog are likely aware, Lodsys has asserted that many application developers are infringing claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 7,222,078 and/or 7,620,565 (I’ll refer to them as the Lodsys Patent Claims).
While these patents seemingly expire August 6, 2012 (as a result of the priority claims and the terminal disclaimers that were filed in each patent), Google nonetheless continues its quest to invalidate the Lodsys Patent Claims. It is worth noting, that once a patent expires or is invalidated, it cannot then be infringed by anyone.
In summary, Google initiated Reexamination proceedings with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565 (Reexamination Control No. 95/000,638) and U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 (Reexamination Control No. 95/000,639) seeking to invalidate the Lodsys Patent Claims. The patent office adopted a majority of Google’s proposed rejections. In response, Lodsys submitted Declarations seeking to overcome the patent office rejections (and particularly U.S. Pat. 5,965,505).
The Declarations submitted by Lodsys identified a number of reports authored by Daniel Abelow and Dr. Barbara Flagg. Interestingly, these reports were dated Spring 1991 --- which is more than one year prior to the earliest filing dates of the Lodsys patents.
Google, seizing upon this, now proposes a number of additional rejections and enforcement issues based on these reports. For example, Google now proposes that the Lodsys Patent Claims are invalid under 35 USC 102(b), because:
If Google is correct on any of these points, the Lodsys Patent Claims appear to be unpatentable or invalid.
Google also notes that Lodsys never submitted the reports to the patent office despite its obligation to disclose information that may be material to patentability. A violation of this duty with respect to any claim could render all claims unpatentable or invalid.
In sum, the Lodsys Patent Claims seem to expire this summer and Lodsys’s efforts to keep the Lodsys Patent Claims from being invalidated have seemingly opened up a lodestone of new arguments that may be used to mitigate their impact.
Stay tuned.
Maybe. I think so. nice read, weird how I found this blog.
Awesome Infographic. Thanks so much for sharing this info with us. Keep Rocking Amit recently posted..Pulse : Transform Websites Into A Colorful & Interactive Mosaic