HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Apple wants the U.S. International Trade Commission to dismiss five patents that Google issued to HTC last year. Hey, if they aren't Apple patents, they obviously can't be valid. Duh. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apple Asks ITC To Dismiss Five Google Patents
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
ChrisJohnson00TA
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,836
With all the BS about the holdup of the Evo LTE and One X, I hope HTC/Google/Samsung/Moto fight back with a huge baseball bat.
Apple needs to DIAF.
Apple needs to DIAF.
That same blog also trumpeted that Oracle v. Google was clear cut and obviously Oracle was going to win billions and Google was screwed.
The guy is a giant troll who doesn't know shit about any of the legal stuff he reports on, don't give him the page views. Hell, he doesn't even know shit about the non-legal stuff (since when does HTC pay royalties to use Chrome to Microsoft? wtf?).
Apparently you don't know that several companies pay MS royalties for shipping on Chrome OS. The article doesn't even say that HTC pays Chrome OS royalties, just that Google's partners in Tawain "almost all of whom, by the way, pay patent royalties on Android and Chrome to Microsoft".
so far he's been completely right in everything about oracle vs. google
Er, you might want to go catch up on Groklaw - FOSS patents has been wrong about *everything* in Oracle v. Google. Oracle is losing that case big time. Even the stuff that should have been obvious (like his claim that Oracle would be allowed to add back a patent that they started the case without due to a preliminary invalidation - which didn't even come close to happening)
I do read Groklaw but I can also read for myself. The blog is right there and all you have to do is go back and read through the past entries.
And the interesting thing is that you keep parroting groklaw in these threads and every time a new development occurs I bump the thread so others can contrast my reading of the case (so far correct, along with others) against yours (so far incorrect along with the pundits at Groklaw).
And the interesting thing is that you keep parroting groklaw in these threads and every time a new development occurs I bump the thread so others can contrast my reading of the case (so far correct, along with others) against yours (so far incorrect along with the pundits at Groklaw).
Such as? You can't just say you are correct and Groklaw is wrong without at least giving an example.
ok.
the latest one was last weekend when you parroted groklaw and stated that the jury was going to side with google and I pointed out that they were either going to deadlock or rule in favor of Oracle.
Monday the jury ruled in favor of Oracle. I bumped the thread too but you didn't respond so I dunno there's not much point in debating with you.
the latest one was last weekend when you parroted groklaw and stated that the jury was going to side with google and I pointed out that they were either going to deadlock or rule in favor of Oracle.
Monday the jury ruled in favor of Oracle. I bumped the thread too but you didn't respond so I dunno there's not much point in debating with you.
Uh, no, they didn't. The jury didn't find for Oracle at all - quite the opposite. I assume you are referring to question 1a which is what all the media jumped on. That question, however, is irrelevant as they were told by the judge to assume that it is true. Question 1b, whether or not it was fair use, they did *not* find for Oracle. Google won that.
they found for infringement, that can't be changed. matters of fact can't be changed.
the judge told them to assume that the API is copyrightable, a fact he has to decide upon eventually.
the fact that google infringed Oracle can't be reversed and is a separate issue from copyrightability of the API anyway.
Google didn't win in any case. They failed to show that they did not infringe and they failed to show that their behavior was fair use. The fair use issue still needs to be decided upon by the judge. The law doesn't work the way you apparently think it does. Not in a civil case anyway.
I don't understand how you can reach an independent decision that google won anything in phase one...hence my conclusion that you are merely parroting groklaw and my other decision not to argue with you over nonsense.
the judge told them to assume that the API is copyrightable, a fact he has to decide upon eventually.
the fact that google infringed Oracle can't be reversed and is a separate issue from copyrightability of the API anyway.
Google didn't win in any case. They failed to show that they did not infringe and they failed to show that their behavior was fair use. The fair use issue still needs to be decided upon by the judge. The law doesn't work the way you apparently think it does. Not in a civil case anyway.
I don't understand how you can reach an independent decision that google won anything in phase one...hence my conclusion that you are merely parroting groklaw and my other decision not to argue with you over nonsense.
if I'm wrong and you have formal legal training or want to take a stab at the case on your own without legal training then present to the board what you understand fair use to be and why you believe google's behavior falls under it and I'll reconsider whether discussing the case with you is a waste of my time.
Mostly true, except whether or not Google infringed on API is still up in the air as if it turns out APIs aren't copyrightable then there is no infringement. Of course, with the jury failing to actually answer the question fully, what also matters is what happens with the mistrial proceedings.
But hey, don't take my word for it, here is what the Judge himself said: "Well, if I rule against you on copyrightability, then even question 1 and 1a is moot."
True...
And no, Google won the documentation claims and damages are also down to just rangeCheck + the 8 copied test files (API is off the table due to the lack of a verdict). No idea how you can claim "Google didn't win any" when they won most of it. rangeCheck + the 8 copied files isn't going to cost them squat.
I'm not parroting anything, I'm reading the transcripts. You might want to do the same. Hell, just go read what the judge is saying.
Google won because the big infringement is no longer relevant - Oracle lost the API damages, lost the documentation, but won the rangeCheck + 9 files - and they might not get any damages for those as they are trying for infringers profits instead of statutory damages.
But hey, keep getting your information from people with zero legal training or understanding whatsoever.
D
Deleted member 136890
Guest
One thing is for sure...both of you discussing off topic personality issues is a waste of my time, I guess I'll step out of the thread too.